IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 1623 OF 2009() -------------------------------------------- CRA.466/2005 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-2), THRISSUR ST.378/2004 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------------------------- MARY JOHN, W/O.JOHN, PUDUKKADAN HOUSE, PANDIYANGADY, IRINJALAKUDA P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JOLLY, S/O.JOSEPH, CHATHELY HOUSE, P.O.IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI RAVINDRA BABU SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN FOR R1 SRI.SAIJO HASSAN FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.1623 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Petitioner stands convicted for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”) on a complaint preferred by respondent No.1, his case being that petitioner issued Ext.P1, cheque on 20.6.2001 for the discharge of the debt to the tune of Rs.90,000/- due to him, that cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and in spite of intimating dishonour and demanding payment petitioner did not pay the amount. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as P.W.1 and proved Exts.P1 to P8. Dishonour of the cheque is proved by Exts.P2, P3, P7 and P8. Issue and service of notice are proved by Exts.P4 and P6. Contention raised by the petitioner is that she had no transaction with respondent No.1 and that the latter obtained the disputed cheque from her handicapped son by threatening him. Courts below were not inclined to accept that contention and found that petitioner executed the cheque for discharge of the debt and failed to rebut the presumption under Sec.l39 of the Act. Learned counsel contends that that finding is not correct. 2. Though petitioner put up a case when questioned under CRL. R.P. No.1623 of 2009 -: 2 :- Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that respondent No.1 obtained the cheque from her handicapped son, it is seen that there was no such suggestion when respondent No.1 was in the box. Instead the suggestion then was that the transaction was between respondent No.1 and son of the petitioner. Suggestion regarding respondent No.1 threatening her handicapped son and obtaining the cheque was not put to him. Apart from that, there is the added fact that in spite of being intimated about the dishonour of the cheque and demanding payment, petitioner did not respond. These facts were taken note of by the learned Magistrate and found against the petitioner. I find no reason to interfere with that finding. Appellate court also confirmed that finding. 3. Trial court sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court and directed her to pay compensation of Rs.90,000/-. Appellate court confirmed it. There is no reason to interfere with the sentence imposed or the direction for payment as well. 4. At this stage learned counsel for petitioner requested for four months’ time to deposit the amount. Considering the amount involved and the circumstances stated by learned counsel I am CRL. R.P. No.1623 of 2009 -: 3 :- inclined to grant three months to the petitioner to deposit the amount. Resultantly, revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted three months’ time from this day to deposit the amount in the trail court. It is made clear that it shall be sufficient compliance of the direction for payment of compensation, 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 receipt of the compensation within the said period two months. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 28.8.2009 to receive the sentence. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv