IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1651 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.17/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.307/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , ETTUMANUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- MR. SANTHOSH.K.P. KETTODUPURATHU HOUSE, VATTAKULAM.P.O., KADAPPOOR, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.C.PADMAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------ 1. LIJO.P.GEORGE, PUTHUVELIL HOUSE, PUNNATHURA WEST.P.O. KOTTAYAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI RAVINDRA BABU FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1651 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009. ORDER 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. Respondent No.1 filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging that petitioner issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 29.1.2004 for the sum of Rs.18,500/- in discharge of a legally enforceable liability and on presentation for encashment, cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Ext.P2. In spite of dishonour intimation and demand petitioner did not pay the amount and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act). Issue and service of notice on the petitioner are proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and testified to his case. Contention raised by the petitioner is that he had borrowed Rs.4,000/- from respondent No.1 and as security, a signed blank cheque was given which was misused. Petitioner did not attempt to prove or probabilise the case pleaded by him. On the other hand there is the evidence of respondent No.1 which the courts below accepted. That petitioner had money transaction with respondent No.1 is admitted. That Ext.P1 contained the signature of the petitioner, that the said cheque was drawn on his account and Crl.R.P.No.1651/2009 2 that petitioner had given that cheque to respondent No.1 are also not disputed. There is nothing brought out in the evidence of respondent No.1 to disbelieve his version. It is also seen that notice was returned undelivered. Notice was concededly issued in the correct address of the petitioner. The presumption is that in such situation notice reached the petitioner. There is nothing to disbelieve the endorsements made by the postman on the returned cover. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the finding of the courts below requiring interference. 3. Learned magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay Rs.18,500/- as compensation. Appellate court modified the substantive sentence to simple imprisonment till rising of the court and converted compensation to fine with default sentence of imprisonment for one month. There is no reason to interfere with the sentence part as well. 4. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted two months' time to deposit fine in the trial court. In the facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to allow that request. Resultantly, this revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Petitioner is granted two months' time from this day to deposit fine as awarded by the appellate court, in the trial court. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court Crl.R.P.No.1651/2009 3 on 28.7.2009 to receive the sentence. Crl.M.A.No.5036 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks