IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2345 OF 2009() ------------------------------------------ CRL. APPEAL NO.170 OF 2003, SECOND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM C.C. NO.291 OF 1999, JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVN. PETITIONER(S) - APPELLATE ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------------- NADARAJAN, S/O. SADASIVAN, KADAMBATUKONAM KUNNUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KILIMANOOR DESOM, KILIMANOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.TRIPTEN RESPONDENT(S) - RESPONDENTS - COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. DIVAKARAN NAIR, S/O. PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, CHERUMANDAYATHU VEEDU, SIVAJI NAGAR NEDUMANMURI, VATTAPPARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 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 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2345 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2009 O R D E R -------------- This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl. Appeal No.170 of 2003 confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.70,000/- on 1.9.1996 and issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 20.12.2000 for repayment of that amount. Dishonour of that cheque for insufficiency of funds is proved by Ext.P2 and P3. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as P.W1 regarding transaction and execution of cheque. According to the petitioner no such amount was due to respondent No.1. Petitioner did not prove the circumstances under which according to him the signed cheque leaf happened to be in the custody of respondent. There is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.1 as P.W.1. Petitioner did not reply to the statutory notice served on him. Courts below found in favour of due execution of the cheque. I find no reason to interfere with the conviction of CRL. R.P. No.2345 of 2009 -: 2 :- petitioner. 3. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Petitioner was directed to pay Rs.70,000/- by way of compensation to respondent No.1 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Appellate court while modifying the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court directed petitioner to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Having regard to the nature of the offence and amount involved I do not find reason to interfere with the sentence as modified, direction for payment of compensation or the default sentence ordered by the appellate court. 4. Learned counsel requested six months' time to deposit compensation. Counsel stated that petitioner is not able to raise the amount immediately. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined to grant time till 30.12.2009 to deposit the compensation in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court. Resultantly this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 30.12.2009 to deposit compensation in the trail court as ordered by the appellate court. It is made clear that it shall CRL. R.P. No.2345 of 2009 -: 3 :- 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. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31.12.2009 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any, against petitioner will remain in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv