IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2247 OF 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.200/2003 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY CC.305/1998 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, MATTANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): /APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------------------- K.J.JANCE,KALAPPURACKAL HOUSE,MANIPPARA. PO,VATTIAMTHODE(VIA),THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. M.K.GIREESH,S/O.NARAYANAN,PROPRIETOR, SINDHU PHOTOSTAT,IRITTY,THALASSERY. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2247 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of July, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I propose to pass which is not prejudicial to him. Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent. No.2. 2. Petitioner faced trial in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mattannur in C.C. No.305 of 1998 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned magistrate found petitioner guilty and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Petitioner was directed to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/-. No default sentence was provided. Appellate court while confirming conviction modified the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court and directed payment of compensation of Rs.80,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month. 3. According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.75,000/- from him on 20.9.1997 and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 20.11.1997. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds which is proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 to P6. CRL. R.P. No.2247 of 2009 -: 2 :- Petitioner contended that he had no transaction with respondent No.1. It is contended that he had a transaction with the brother of respondent No.1 and a signed blank cheque was given to him as security and that cheque has been misused. Petitioner did not adduce evidence or bring out circumstances proving or probabilising that contention. He did not reply to the notice served on him. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.1 regarding the transaction and due execution of the cheque. Courts below considered the evidence and found in favour of due execution of the cheque. There is no reason to interfere with the said finding. Substantive sentence as modified by the appellate court and direction for payment of compensation with default sentence also does not require interference at the instance of petitioner. 4. Counsel for petitioner requested six months’ time to deposit the compensation. Counsel submits that petitioner is unable to raise the amount immediately. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined to grant time till 30.12.2009 to the petitioner to deposit compensation in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court. Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is CRL. R.P. No.2247 of 2009 -: 3 :- granted time till 30.12.2009 to deposit the compensation in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31.12.2009 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant against petitioner will be kept in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv