IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2009 / 24TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2265 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.100/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), MANJERI CC.367/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PERINTHALMANNA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- MONI P.K., W/O.JAYARAJAN, POLY QUARTERS, P.O.ANGADIPPURAM, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY SMT.ANITHA M.N. (EKM) RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: --------------- 1. K.P.RAMESH, S/O.RAJAN, KOTTAYEPURATH HOUSE, KOZHIKODE ROAD, P.O.PERINTHALMANNA. 2. THE STATE, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S.HRITHWIK FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2265 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2009. ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in this revision 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 (Adhoc)-I, Manjeri in Crl.Appeal No.100 of 2007 confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). According to respondent No.1 on whose complaint the proceeding was initiated, husband of petitioner owed certain amount to him, cheque issued by the husband was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and thereon he filed C.C.No.135 of 1998 against the husband of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. In connection with that case husband of the petitioner was arrested by the police. A settlement followed as per which petitioner offered to pay the amount and issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 10.9.2004 for Rupees one lakh. Pursuant to that settlement, respondent No.1 withdrew the case against the husband of petitioner. He presented the cheque issued by the petitioner but it was dishonourd for insufficiency of funds and since payment was stopped as proved by Ext.P2. Statutory notice was served on petitioner as proved by Exts.P3 series Crl.R.P.No.2265/2009 2 and P4. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and testified to his case. According to the petitioner, in the mediation following the filing of the case against her husband it was agreed that Rs.50,000/- is payable to respondent No.1. Out of that, Rs.40,000/- was paid to respondent No.1 and balance payable was only Rs.10,000/-. Signed blank cheque given as security has been misused. 3. As regard the transaction leading to the execution of cheque respondent No.1 has given evidence. It is not disputed that he had instituted case against the husband of the petitioner for similar offence and pursuant to a settlement that case was withdrawn. There is also no dispute that as part of that settlement petitioner has given the cheque to respondent No.1 though according to her, as security and in signed blank form for the balance sum of Rs.10,000/- payable. There is no evidence to show that as per the settlement the amount payable to respondent No.1 was fixed as Rs.50,000/- and Rs.40,000/- has been paid. Petitioner has not raised this contention when the statutory notice was served on her. Courts below found that there is no reason to disbelieve respondent No.1 regarding the transaction and execution of the cheque. I do not find reason to interfere with that finding. 4. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. She was directed to pay compensation of Rupees Crl.R.P.No.2265/2009 3 one lakh to respondent No.1. Default sentence of imprisonment for six months was also provided. Appellate court while confirming direction for payment of compensation modified the default sentence as simple imprisonment for three months and the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. Having regard to the nature of offence and the object of legislation there is little reason to interfere with the sentence as modified by the appellate court. 5. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner may be granted six months' time to deposit compensation. According to the learned counsel, petitioner is in financial difficulties and 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. Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 30.12.2009 to deposit compensation in the trial court. It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance of the direction for payment of compensation if petitioner paid the compensation to respondent No.1 through her counsel in the trial court and respondent No.1 filed a statement in the trial court through his counsel acknowledging receipt of compensation within the above said period. Crl.R.P.No.2265/2009 4 Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31.12.2009 to receive the sentence. Execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance till 31.12.2009. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks