IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2379 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.313/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK COURT-II (ADHOC), THRISSUR CC.1437/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------- K.R.SATHEESH,AGED 49 YEARS,S/O.RAMAN, KOTTAKATH HOUSE,PROPRIETOR,THEERTHA JEWELLERY, CHENDRAPPINNI DESOM,CHENDRAPPINNI VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD SRI.P.G.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE -------------------------- 1. SUJA BHARATHAN,W/O.BHARATHAN,MULLEZHATH HOUSE,PALLIPRAM,CHENDRAPPINNI DESOM,CHENDRAPPINNI VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S.HRITHWIK FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2379 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of July, 2009. ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in the revision which is not prejudicial to her. Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. Heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor. 2. Concurrent finding entered by the courts below as to the due execution of a cheque for discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability is attempted to be unsettled by way of this revision. Petitioner faced trial in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodungallur in C.C.No.1437 of 2005 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). Respondent No.1 pleaded and gave evidence as PW1 that petitioner issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 6.5.2005 for discharge of a debt/liability amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Contention raised is that the due execution of the cheque is not proved. But it is seen that evidence of respondent No.1 as PW1 was not challenged in cross examination. Petitioner has no Crl.R.P.No.2379/2009 2 acceptable explanation as to how else the cheque happened to be in the custody of respondent No.1. Petitioner did not also reply to the statutory notice. In these circumstances there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding. 3. Appellate court has modified substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court while retaining the direction for payment of compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- to respondent No.1 and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Having regard to the nature of offence and amount involved, I do not find reason to interfere with the sentence as modified by the appellate court or the direction for payment of compensation and default sentence at the instance of petitioner. 4. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted six months’ time to deposit compensation. It is stated that petitioner is unable to raise the amount immediately on account of financial difficulties. Having regard to the circumstances stated by learned counsel and considering the amount involved, I am inclined to grant time till 30.12.2009 to deposit compensation. Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 30.12.2009 to deposit compensation in the trial court. 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 her counsel acknowledging receipt of compensation within the above Crl.R.P.No.2379/2009 3 said period. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31.12.2009 to receive the sentence. Execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance till 31.12.2009. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks