IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2009 / 19TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2570 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.82/2008 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT-II, MAVELIKKARA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------- SASIDHARA KURUP, PUTHENPURA PADEETTATHIL IRAVANKARA PO, MAVELIKKARA,. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SRI.B.BIPIN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP,.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUJATHA, S/O.MURALEEDHARAN UNNITHAN, ILAVANHANAN VEEDU, IRAVANKARA PO, MAVELIKKARA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI C S HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2570 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 10th day of August 2009 ORDER Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in this revision which is not prejudicial to him. Heard counsel for petitioner and public prosecutor who took notice for respondent No.1. 2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track No-2, Mavelikkara in Criminal Appeal No.82 of 2008 confirming conviction and sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to respondent No.2, petitioner borrowed Rs.10000/- and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 14-08-2005 for the said amount. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Statutory notice issued to the petitioner was turned 'refused'. Issue and return of notice as aforesaid are proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Respondent No.2 gave evidence as PW1 and stated that petitioner borrowed the amount and issued the cheque. It was suggested to respondent No.1 that her husband and petitioner were engaged in joint contract work, they sell out and the signed blank which her husband had, has been misused. She denied the suggestion. The challenge in this revision is as to the finding regarding due execution of the cheque. Crl.R.P.No.2570 of 2009 2 3. It is not disputed that Ext.P1 contained the signature of petitioner and is drawn on the account maintained by him. His contention that he had joint work with the husband of respondent No.2 is denied. There is no evidence also to hold so. There is also no evidence to show that the signed cheque leafs happened to be in the custody of respondent No.2 in the circumstances pleaded by petitioner. Petitioner has refused to accept the notice which indicated that he was aware of the claim being made by respondent No.2. Nothing is brought out to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.2. Courts below considered the evidence and circumstances and held that there is no reason to believe that evidence. I do not find reason to differ from that finding. 4. Learned magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and payment of compensation of Rs.10000/-. Default sentence for fifteen days was also provided. Appellate court did not interfere with the sentence. It is requested that sentence awarded to the petitioner is excessive. Learned counsel also requested one months' time to deposit compensation. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that simple imprisonment till rising of the court is sufficient in the ends of justice. There is no reason to interfere with the direction for payment of compensation at the instance of Crl.R.P.No.2570 of 2009 3 petitioner. Considering the circumstances stated by petitioner, he is granted one months' time to deposit the compensation. Considering the amount involved and the facts of the case and since the substantive sentence is being modified it is directed that in case of non payment of compensation petitioner has to undergo simple imprisonment for forty five days. Resultantly this revision is allowed in part to the following extent: 1. substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. 2. Petitioner is granted one months' time from today to deposit compensation in the trial court as ordered by that court. In case of failure petitioner has to undergo simple imprisonment for forty five days. 3. It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance of the direction for deposit of compensation if petitioner paid compensation to respondent No.2 through his counsel in the trial court and respondent No.2 filed a statement in the trial court through her counsel acknowledging receipt of the amount within the period aforesaid. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 14-09-2009 to receive the sentence. Execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance till 14-09-2009. Crl.R.P.No.2570 of 2009 4 THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/