IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1619 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.33/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT-III, KOZHIKODE ST.3328/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-V, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- HUSSAIN, PUZHAKKALAKATH, S/O. KUNHIMUHAMMED, PUNATHIL HOUSE, PUTHARIKKAL P.O., PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN SMT.BINDU GEORGE RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: --------------- 1. SHAMEER M.P., S/O. KOYAMOIDEEN, PUNATHIL HOUSE, KODAMBUZHA, FEROKE COLLEGE P.O., CALICUT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1619 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th 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. Concurrent finding entered by the courts below against petitioner that he issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 15.5.2005 for Rs.25,000/- for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability, that the cheque was dishonoured as 'payment stopped' and that inspite of dishonour initimation 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) is under challenge in this revision at the instance of petitioner. 3. It is contended by learned counsel that conviction of the petitioner is not legal and proper. Ext.P1 is the cheque in question which admittedly contained the signature of the petitioner. Contention raised by the petitioner in the trial court and asserted in the appellate court is that he lost a bag containing seven cheque leaves including Ext.P1 on 7.5.2005 and respondent No.1 who stealthily got possession of one cheque has mis-used it. Though a suggestion in that line was made to PW1, he denied that. What is available on the side of the petitioner is only the suggestion made to respondent No.1. Petitioner has not Crl.R.P.No.1619/2009 2 attempted at producing any evidence to prove or probabilise his contention. Respondent No.1 has given evidence as to the transaction which the courts below found acceptable. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the findings entered by the courts below as to the guilt of the petitioner. 4. Substantive sentence awarded by the trial court was modified by the appellate court as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. The direction for payment of compensation of Rs.25,000/- was converted as fine. In the nature of the offence committed, instead of fine, petitioner is directed to pay compensation f Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twentyfive thousand only) to respondent No.1 and in case of non-payment, petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months. There is no reason to interfere with the substantial sentence as modified by the appellate court. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner requested two months’ time to deposit compensation in the trial court. Having regard to the nature of the offence and facts and circumstances I am inclined to allow that request. Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. However petitioner is granted two months’ time from this day to deposit the compensation in the trial court. It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance with the above direction if petitioner paid the 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 the receipt of the compensation within the Crl.R.P.No.1619/2009 3 aforesaid time. In case of non-payment of compensation petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 28.7.2009 to receive the sentence. Crl.M.A.No.4926 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks