IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2017 OF 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.311/2005 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), TRIVANDRUM ST.2869/2003 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, VARKALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): /APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------------------------- P.S.AJI R.S.BHAVAN, CHALAVILA, KARUNILAKODE DESOM, VARKALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.PRASAD SRI.ABHILASH S.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND THE STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. DEEPU, S/O.THYAGARAJAN, SHEELA NIVAS, PULLANKIKODE DESOM, EDAVA, VARKALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2017 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of June, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to make and 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 (Fast Track-I), Thiruvananthapuram in Crl. Appeal No.311 of 2005 confirming conviction and sentence of petitioner entered by learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Varkala in S.T. No.2869 of 2003. That was a case initiated on a complaint preferred by respondent No.1. He alleged that petitioner borrowed Rs.31,000/- from him and for repayment of that debt issued cheque dated 10.9.2002. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Respondent No.1 issued notice to the petitioner intimating dishonour and demanding payment. Dishonour of the cheque for reasons stated above is proved by Ext.P2. Issue and service of notice on petitioner are not disputed, and proved by Exts.P3 to P5. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as P.W.1 and claimed that petitioner borrowed Rs.31,000/- from him and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque. Petitioner when questioned under Section 313 CRL. R.P. No.2017 of 2009 -: 2 :- of the Code of Criminal Procedure requested time for settlement. He did not seriously dispute the case of respondent No.1 regarding the transaction and execution of the cheque. He did not also reply to the notice admittedly served on him. Courts below considered the evidence in the light of the above circumstances and held that due execution of the cheque is proved. In the course of evidence respondent No.1 admitted that petitioner paid Rs.10,000/- to him. Learned counsel submits that the payment was after presentation and dishonour of the cheque. Hence that cannot affect the complaint or conviction. On going through the judgments under challenge and hearing counsel for petitioner I do not find reason to interfere with conviction of the petitioner. 3. Though amount covered by the cheque is Rs.31,000/-, taking into account the statement of respondent No.1 in the box that he received Rs.10,000/- from petitioner, learned magistrate while sentencing the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one month directed him to deposit Rs.23,000/- as compensation and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Learned magistrate has taken into consideration the said payment and limited the compensation payable to Rs.23,000/-. There is no reason to interfere with the direction regarding payment of compensation. Appellate court did not interfere with the sentence CRL. R.P. No.2017 of 2009 -: 3 :- also. Considering the amount involved and nature of offence I am satisfied that simple imprisonment till rising of the court is sufficient in the ends of justice. Sentence is modified accordingly. 4. Counsel for petitioner requested time to deposit compensation in the trial court. Having regard to the amount involved I am inclined to grant one month's time to the petitioner to deposit compensation. Resultantly, this revision is allowed in part to the following extent. (i) Substantive sentence awarded by the courts below is modified as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. (ii) Petitioner is granted one month's time from this day to deposit Rs.23,000/- (Rupees Twenty three thousand only) in the trial court as compensation for payment to respondent No.1. In case of failure petitioner shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the appellate court. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 25.7.2009 to receive the sentence. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv