IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2503 OF 2009() ------------------------------------------- CRA.109/2007 OF SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI ST.2866/2005 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, NILAMBUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- P.MUHAMMED, S/O.KUNHIMUHAMMED, PULIKKAL HOUSE, KARUVAMPRAM P.O., CHETTIYANGADI, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON SRI.M.V.ANANDAN SRI.C.J.SOLOMAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. M.K.VINOJ, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, MALLISSERIL HOUSE, BOODHANAM P.O., CHUNKATHARA (VIA), NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2503 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of August, 2009 O R D E R -------------- 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. Concurrent finding entered by the courts below as to due execution of the cheque for discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability is under challenge in this revision. According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.70,000/- from him on 25.9.2005 and issued Ext.P1, cheque. That cheque was dishonoured as account was closed. Cause of dishonour is not under challenge and proved by Exts.P2, P3 and P7. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as P.W1. According to the petitioner, respondent No.1 was an employee in his workshop and was dismissed from service. While so respondent No.1 came to his workshop and quarreled with him demanding compensation which he refused. To wreck vengeance a false complaint is preferred against him. Petitioner examined D.W.1 in proof of his case. It is contended by learned counsel that finding regarding execution of cheque is not correct. Respondent No.1 CRL. R.P. No.2503 of 2009 -: 2 :- produced his pass book to show that on 31.5.2005 he had availed a loan of Rs.1,00,000/-. According to respondent No.1 it is from the said sum of Rs.1,00,000/- that on 25.9.2005 he advanced Rs.70,000/- to petitioner. D.W.1 stated that respondent No.1 was working in the workshop of petitioner and while so in July, 2005 respondent No.1 was expelled from service. One day in July, 2005 respondent No.1 came to the workshop of petitioner and quarreled with the latter demanding compensation. When petitioner refused, respondent No.1 left the place threatening petitioner that he will teach him a lesson. It came out in the evidence of D.W.1 that though he claimed to be residing in the neighborhood of the workshop he is actually residing 1½ kms away. Learned magistrate observed that if that be so D.W.1 had no occasion to witness the alleged incident spoken by him. It is also not explained by the petitioner how the signed blank cheque leaf happened to be in the custody of respondent No.1. Petitioner did not reply to the statutory notice. It is in these circumstances courts below found in favour of due execution of the cheque. I have no reason to disagree with that finding. 3. Learned Sessions Judge while confirming the direction for payment of compensation and default sentence modified the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. There is no reason to interfere with the sentence as modified, direction for payment of compensation or the default sentence as CRL. R.P. No.2503 of 2009 -: 3 :- confirmed by the appellate court. 4. Learned counsel requested six months' time for petitioner to deposit compensation. It is submitted that petitioner is unable to raise the amount immediately. It is also requested that petitioner may be permitted to pay the compensation directly to respondent No.1. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined to grant time till 30.12.2009 to deposit compensation. Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 30.12.2009 to deposit compensation in the trial court as ordered by that court. It is made clear that it shall be sufficient compliance with 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 his counsel acknowledging receipt of compensation within the said period. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31.12.2009 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any against petitioner will remain in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv