IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2398 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.873/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT FAST TRACK (ADHOC)-IV, TRIVANDRUM ST.311/2005 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-X, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- N.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR,S/O. NARAYANA PILLAI, AGED 57 YEARS, VASUDEVA VILASOM, AMBALATHINKARA ROAD, VALIYASALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. M.RAJA KUMAR, PADMA VILAS, MUNDANAD ROAD, VALIYASALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2398 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2009. ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in this revision which is not prejudicial to him. Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. 2. Petitioner faced trial in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-X, Thiruvananthapuram in S.T.No.311 of 2005 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). According to respondent No.1 petitioner owed Rs.1,50,000/- to him and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 2.11.2004. Its dishonour as account was closed is proved by Ext. P2. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is admitted and proved by Exts.P3 to P5. Ext.P6 is the reply. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and stated about the transaction leading to execution of the cheque. According to the petitioner he borrowed only Rs.10,000/- from respondent No.1 in connection with his business and gave signed blank cheque as security. He repaid the amount but respondent No.1 retained the cheque and has been misused it. 3. It is not disputed that Ext.P1 contained the signature of petitioner and is drawn on the account maintained by him. His case that he borrowed only Rs.10,000/- and at that time gave signed blank cheque as security is denied by Crl.R.P.No.2398/2009 2 respondent No.1. Petitioner has not adduced any evidence or brought out circumstances to prove or probabilise his contention. Courts below observed that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.1. The finding that petitioner issued the cheque for discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability is based on assessment of evidence. There is little reason to interfere with that finding. 4. Appellate court has modified the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court while confirming the direction for payment of compensation and default sentence provided by the learned magistrate. There is no reason to interfere with the substantive sentence as modified by the appellate court or the direction for payment of compensation and default sentence. 5. Learned counsel submitted that since petitioner on account of financial difficulties unable to raise the amount immediately, he may be granted six months’ time to deposit compensation. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel and the amount involved, I am inclined to grant time till 30.12.2009 to the petitioner to deposit compensation. . Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 30.12.2009 to deposit compensation as ordered by the courts below. It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance of the direction for payment of compensation if petitioner paid compensation to respondent No.1 through his counsel in the trial court and respondent No.1 filed a statement in the trial court through his counsel acknowledging receipt of compensation within the Crl.R.P.No.2398/2009 3 above said period. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31.12.2009 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks