IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2649 of 2009() --------------------------------------- CRA.485/2004 of SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY CC.383/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KANNUR .............................................................................. REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- P.CHANDRAN,AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. NARAYNAN,PANNIYODAN HOUSE, NEAR KIZHAKKE PARAMBU LAKSHAM VEEDU, P.O.MAYYIL, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLIANANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. S.K.CHANDRAMOHANAN,AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. KARUNAKARA VAIDYAR, RESIDING AT SREEKULANGARA HOUSE, PALLIPRAM P.O. MUNDAYAD, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.S.HRITIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH,J -------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2649 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 17th August,2009 ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I propose to pass in this revision which is not prejudicial to him. 2. This Revision is in challenge of Judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Thalassery in Criminal Appeal No.455/2004 confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. According to respondent no.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) from him on 20/9/2002 and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 31/10/2005. Dishonour of that cheque for insufficiency of funds is proved by Ext.P2. Respondent no.1 issued notice to the petitioner intimating dishonour and demanding payment of the amount. But the notice was returned “unclaimed” though intimation was given to the petitioner. Respondent no.1 gave evidence as Pw1 and testified to his case. According to the petitioner, he had borrowed Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand only) from respondent no.1 and given a signed blank cheque. He has repaid Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to respondent Crl.R.P.No.2649 of 2009 2 no.1. Respondent no.1 has misused the signed blank cheque. 3. Though the petitioner contended so, neither is there any evidence adduced nor any circumstances brought out in the evidence of respondent no.1 to prove or probablise that contention. It is not disputed that petitioner had financial transaction with respondent no.1and it was in connection with that, the cheque was given. Courts below found that there is no reason to believe the evidence of respondent no.1 that the notice was returned 'unclaimed' in spite of intimation given to the petitioner indicated that he was aware of the claim being made on behalf of respondent. In this circumstances, there is no reason to interfere the conviction of petitioner. 4. While confirming the direction of payment of compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to respondent no.1 and the default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. Learned Sessions Judge modified the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. Having regard to the nature of offence, object of legislation and the amount involved, I find no reason to interfere with that, at the instance of petitioner. 5. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be Crl.R.P.No.2649 of 2009 3 granted a month's time to deposit compensation in the trial court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances stated by learned counsel, I am inclined to grant such time. Resultantly, this revision petition fails and it is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 18/9/2009 to deposit compensation in trial court. It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance with the direction of deposit of compensation if petitioner paid compensation to respondent no.1 through his counsel in the trial court through his counsel acknowledging receipt of compensation before the aforesaid time. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 19/9/2009 to receive the sentence. Execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance till 19/9/2009. THOMAS P JOSEPH,JUDGE ssn Crl.R.P.No.2649 of 2009 4