IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2671 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.205/2007 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.73/2005 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-V, NEYYATTINKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- G.MADHAVAN KURUP, S/O GOVINDA KURUP, 7/33, V.S.S.HOUSING COLONY, THUMPA P.O., ATTIPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: --------------- 1. GABRIEL NADAR, S/O YAGAPPAN NADAR, G.S.SADANAM, MAVILAKKADAVU, KULATHOOR DESOM, KULATHOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R.JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2671 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th 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-II, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.Appeal No.205 of 2007 confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). Case of respondent No.1 is that petitioner borrowed Rs.17,000/- from him and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 13.11.2000. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as seen from Exts.P2 and P6. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Ext.P3 to P5. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and testified to his case. According to the petitioner, he borrowed the amount through his younger brother and repaid it. The signed blank cheque was misused. Petitioner proved Ext.D1, notice dated 12.7.2000 sent by respondent No.1 demanding payment of the amount. Courts below found in favour of due execution of the cheque for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. That finding is under challenge. 3. Even when questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Crl.R.P.No.2671/2009 2 Procedure, petitioner admitted that he borrowed Rs.17,000/- from respondent No.1, his claim being that he repaid it, but there is no evidence in that line. Ext.D1, notice dated 12.7.2000 only indicated that the cheque was issued after Ext.D1, notice. But that is of no avail since the liability otherwise is admitted by the petitioner also his claim being only one of discharge. No evidence is produced by the petitioner. There was no circumstance to come to the conclusion that the liability has been discharged. In these circumstances conviction of petitioner does not require interference. 4. Appellate court while confirming the direction for payment of compensation and default sentence, modified the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. I do not find reason to interfere with the substantive sentence as modified or the direction for payment of compensation and the default sentence as confirmed by the appellate court, at the instance of petitioner. 5. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted five months’ time to deposit compensation since petitioner is in a financially difficult situation and is unable to raise the amount immediately. it is also requested that petitioner may be permitted to pay compensation directly to respondent No.1. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel and considering the amount involved, I am inclined to grant time to the petitioner till 18.12.2009 to deposit/pay compensation. Crl.R.P.No.2671/2009 3 Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 18.12.2009 to deposit compensation in the trial court. 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 its counsel acknowledging receipt of compensation within the above stated period. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 21.12.2009 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks