IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2515 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.233/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC), FAST TRACK COURT NO.II, MANJERI ST.190/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(FOREST OFFENCES), MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- M.UMMER, S/O.MUHAMMED, MANCHERITHODIKA HOUSE, SANKARAMKULAM, PALEMAD P.O., EDAKKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------------------ 1. PRADEEPKUMAR, S/O.SAKARA NARAYANAN, KUTTIKKAD HOUSE, KOLOTHUMMURY, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE 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 06/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2515 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 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 him. Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. 2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge(Adhoc), Fast Track Court-II Manjeri in Crl.Appeal No.233 of 2008 confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.50,000/- from him on 5.8.2003 undertaking to repay the same within one month and on 23.9.2003 issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 23.9.2003 for repayment of that amount. That cheque was dishonoured as 'full cover not received' as proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Respondent No.1 issued notice to the petitioner intimating dishonour and demanding payment of the amount as proved by Exts.P4 to P6. But there was no response. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and testified to his case. According to the petitioner the cheque was given to another person in connection with a transaction and that was misused by respondent No.1. It is contended that cause of dishonour is not proved and that there is no evidence regarding due execution of the cheque. Crl.R.P.No.2515/2009 2 3. It is seen from Exts.P2 and P3 that cheque was dishonoured as full cover not received which indicated that there was no sufficient funds in the account of petitioner to honour the cheque. So far as execution of the cheque is concerned, there is the evidence of PW1. Petitioner did not reply to the statutory notice taking up the contention now attempted to be pressed into service. Courts below found that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.1. On going through the judgments under challenge and hearing learned counsel I find no reason to differ from that finding. 4. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Petitioner was directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to respondent No.1 and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Appellate court while retaining the direction for payment of compensation and the default sentence, modified the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. I do not find reason to interfere with the sentence, direction for payment of compensation or the default sentence as modified/confirmed by the appellate court. 5. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted four months’ time to deposit the compensation. He stated that petitioner is a coolie by occupation and is unable to raise the amount immediately. Having regard to the circumstances stated by learned counsel and considering the amount involved, petitioner is granted time till 5.12.2009 to deposit compensation in the trial court. Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is Crl.R.P.No.2515/2009 3 granted time till 5.12.2009 from this day 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 his counsel acknowledging receipt of compensation within the above stated period. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 7.12.2009 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks