IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2512 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.562/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.2971/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- P.S.NANDAKISHORE, S/O.SIDHARTHAN, NANDADEEPAM, CALICUT BYEPASS ROAD, SEKHARIPURAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------------------ 1. K.S.MANOJ, S/O.SUNDARAN NAIR, VINOD VIHAR, MUTHAMPALAYAM, OLAVAKKODU, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR : SRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2512 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 06th day of August 2009 ORDER This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Palakkad in criminal appeal No.562 of 2006 confirming conviction and sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.200000/- from him on 11-07-2004 on executing a demand promissory note and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 11-08-2004. Dishonour of the cheque for insufficiency of funds is proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 to P6. According to the petitioner, in respect of a kuri transaction signed blank cheques were given to respondent No.1, one of which has been misused in this case. Petitioner proved Exts.D1 to D3. Learned magistrate did not act upon Exts.D1 to D3 and found petitioner guilty. Learned Sessions Judge concurred. The concurrent finding is under challenge.. 2. It is not disputed that petitioner had many transactions with respondent No.1 and that he had given Exts.P1 to respondent No.1. Ext.D3 is certified copy of petition register dated 21-07-2004. Learned magistrate has observed that Ext.D3 does not show that respondent No.1 got the cheque in the circumstance pleaded by Crl.R.No.2512 of 2009 2 petitioner. Petitioner has no case that the cheque was obtained under threat or coercion. Ext.D3 only show that petitioner had liability to respondent No.1 which was settled in mediation. According to respondent No.1, it is pursuant to that settlement that the cheque was issued. There is no reason to hold otherwise. Exts.D1 and D2 only show that respondent No.1 had preferred two other cases also against petitioner. It has come in evidence that pursuant to the settlement at the police station petitioner had issued two other cheques also in favour of respondent No.1. Petitioner has not replied to the statutory notice served on him. On going through the judgments under challenge and hearing learned counsel I find no reason to disagree with the finding of the courts below as to due execution of the cheque. 3. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. There was also a direction for payment of compensation of Rs. Two lakhs and default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months. Appellate court did not interfere with the sentence, direction for payment of compensation or the default sentence. Learned counsel requested that leniency may be shown in the matter of sentence and that petitioner may be granted six months' time to deposit compensation. The further request is that petitioner may be permitted to pay compensation directly to respondent No.1. Considering the nature of the offence I am satisfied that simple imprisonment till rising of the court is sufficient in the ends Crl.R.No.2512 of 2009 3 of justice. There is no reason to interfere with direction for payment of compensation or default sentence, at the instance of petitioner. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel and the amount involved, petitioner is granted time till 16-01-2010 to deposit compensation. 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 time till 16-01-2010 to deposit compensation as directed by learned magistrate. 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.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 period aforesaid. 4. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 18-01-2010 to receive the sentence. Execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance till 18.01.2010. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/