IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 1624 OF 2009() -------------------------------------------- CRA.682/2005 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), TRIVANDRUM ST.659/2004 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, ATTINGAL .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------ MONI SARANGU, SARANGU, MELATTINGAL DESOM, ALAMKODE VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): STATE/COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. AYYAPPA KURUP, S/O.VELAYUDHA KURUP, VALLAVILA VEEDU, KAJATTUKONAM, KILIMANOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.1624 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of May, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Public Prosecutor takes notice for R1. Notice to R2 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in the revision which is not in any way prejudicial to respondent No.2. 2. Petitioner has suffered a conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”) on a concurrent finding that she executed Ext.P1, cheque dated 10.1.2004 for discharge of the debt to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and in spite dishonour intimation and demanding payment, she did not pay the amount. It is contended by learned counsel that due execution of the cheque is not proved. 3. Respondent No.2 contended that petitioner availed a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- and issued cheque dated 8.12.2003 for the discharge of that liability. Case pleaded by the petitioner is that she had given the cheque in question to a Co-operative Society of which D.W.1 is the President. D.W.1 handed over that cheque to D.W.2 who in turn entrusted the same with respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 misused that cheque and preferred the complaint. P.W.1 denied that CRL. R.P. No.1624 of 2009 -: 2 :- suggestion. Learned magistrate observed that evidence of P.W.1 and D.Ws.1 and 2 would show that the plea raised by the petitioner is without substance. No evidence was adduced by the petitioner to show that Ext.P1 is a cheque which she had entrusted with the Co- operative Society. That Ext.P1 contained the signature of petitioner is admitted and proved. Courts below have relied on the evidence of P.W.1 to hold in favour of due execution of cheque. It is also pertinent to note that petitioner has not replied to the notice served on her. Petitioner was not successful in rebutting the presumption under Sec.139 of the Act also. Therefore conviction is legal and proper. 4. Learned magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and directed payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. Appellate court while retaining the direction of payment of compensation modified the sentence to simple imprisonment till the rising of court. There is no reason or scope for showing further leniency in the matter of sentence. The direction for payment of compensation is proper and require no interference. 5. At this stage counsel for petitioner requested three months’ time to deposit the compensation in the trial court. Considering the facts of the case and the amount involved I am CRL. R.P. No.1624 of 2009 -: 3 :- inclined to allow that request. Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted three months’ time from this day to deposit the compensation in the trial court. It is made clear that it shall be sufficient compliance of the direction for payment of compensation if petitioner paid the compensation to respondent No.2 through his counsel in the trial court and respondent No.2 filed a statement in the trial court through his counsel acknowledging receipt of the compensation within the said period two months. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 28.8.2009 to receive the sentence. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv