IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2009 / 17TH ASHADHA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2200 OF 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.778/2007 OF ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK (ADHOC-II), KOZHIKODE) CC.400/2006 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PERAMBRA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): /APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------------- T.V.ALIAMMA, PEON, KAYANNA GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE, KAYANNA BAZARM KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.P.RANI DIOTHIMA RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. C.M.BALAN, S/O. ARIYAN, THIYYARKANDI CHALIL, KOOTHALI.P.O., KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2200 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th 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 and which is not prejudicial to him. Public Prosecutor took notice for respondent No.2. 2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast-rack (Adhoc-II), Kozhikode in Crl. Appeal No.778 of 2007 confirming conviction and sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. Case of respondent No.1 is that in June, 2006 petitioner borrowed Rs.7,500/- from him and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 16.9.2006. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Dishonour of the cheque for the said reason is proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Respondent No.1 issued notice to the petitioner intimating dishonour and demanding payment which is proved by Exts.P4, P4(a) and P5. She sent Ext.P6, reply. According to the petitioner, when she was in need of money she approached one Devi for help. Since Devi was not possessed of money she approached respondent No.1 as instructed by Devi. She borrowed CRL. R.P. No.2200 of 2009 -: 2 :- Rs.5,000/- from respondent No.1 and gave signed blank cheque as security. She discharged the liability towards respondent No.1. But the blank cheque leaf is misused. Petitioner gave evidence in the above line as D.W.1. Courts below were not inclined to believe the evidence of petitioner, found her guilty and convicted. That finding is under challenge. 4. It is not disputed that Ext.P1 contains the signature of petitioner and that the cheque is drawn on the account maintained by her. Petitioner also admits that she had borrowed money from respondent No.1 and in that transaction she gave the cheque to respondent No.1. That cheque is produced by respondent No.1. There is no reliable evidence to show that the transaction was only regarding Rs.5,000/- or that petitioner repaid any amount to respondent No.1. 5. So far as negotiable instrument is concerned when respondent No.1 produced the same from his custody which created liability on petitioner, she had to show that no amount was due from her. She has not adduced reliable evidence. Courts below have considered the evidence and found in favour of due execution of the cheque. There is no reason to interfere with that finding or the CRL. R.P. No.2200 of 2009 -: 3 :- consequent conviction. 6. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court and directed her to pay Rs.7,500/- as compensation. In default of payment, sentence of simple imprisonment for three months also was provided. Appellate court did not interfere with the sentence, direction for payment of compensation or the default sentence. Having regard to the nature of offence and amount involved there is no reason to interfere with the sentence, direction for payment of compensation and the default sentence at the instance of petitioner. 7. Learned counsel requested three months’ time to deposit compensation in the trial court. 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 two months’ time to the petitioner to deposit compensation in the trial court. Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted two months’ time from this day to deposit compensation in the trial court as ordered by the learned magistrate. It is made clear that it shall be sufficient compliance with the direction for deposit of CRL. R.P. No.2200 of 2009 -: 4 :- compensation if petitioner paid compensation to respondent No.1 through her 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 aforesaid period. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 10.9.2009 to receive the sentence. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv