IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR,JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2182 OF 2009() ---------------------------------------------- CRA.291/2007 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC), PALAKKAD ST.872/2006 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------------------------- REJENDRAN, S/O RAJAN.V, MANTHURUTHI, CHEMPANA, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RANGARAJAN, S/O NATARAJAN, 34/286, KARUKODIPALAYAM, VADAKKANTHARA, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S. HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2182 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of July, 2009 O R D E R -------------- 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. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Palakkad in Crl.Appeal No.291 of 2007 confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Case arose on a complaint preferred by respondent No.1. His case is that petitioner borrowed Rs.50,000/- from him and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 6.9.2005. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Respondent No.1 served notice on petitioner intimating dishonour and demanding payment as proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as P.W.1 and stated to his case. 3. Contention raised in this revision is that due execution of the cheque is not proved. But it is seen that respondent No.1 (P.W1) was not cross-examined on behalf of petitioner in spite of giving sufficient time. The unchallenged version of respondent No.1 is that CRL. R.P. No.2182 of 2009 -: 2 :- petitioner borrowed Rs.50,000/- and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W1. Courts below are therefore justified in holding that petitioner issued Ext.P1, cheque for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. 4. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. Petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.50,000/- as compensation. In default of payment sentence of simple imprisonment for two months also was provided. Appellate court modified the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court while retaining direction for payment of compensation and the default sentence. There is no reason to interfere with the sentence as modified by the appellate court, direction for payment of compensation or default sentence. 5. Counsel requested four months’ time to deposit compensation. Counsel submits that petitioner is unable to raise the amount immediately. Having regard to the circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined to grant four months’ time to the petitioner to deposit compensation in the trial court. Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is CRL. R.P. No.2182 of 2009 -: 3 :- granted four months' time from this day to deposit compensation in the trial court. It is made clear that it shall be sufficient compliance with the direction for deposit of compensation if petitioner paid the 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 the compensation within the said period months. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 9.11.2009 to receive the sentence. Until then warrant if any against petitioner will be kept in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv