IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2748 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.1005/2006 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.171/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ATTINGAL .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- G.BABU @ RAJENDRA BABU, VRINDAVANATHIL,CHENCHERIKONAM, ALAMCODE VILLAGE,ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. SASI,S/O.KESAVAN, PASANTHA VILAYIL,KOTTYCODE,CHITTATTINKARA DESOM, AVANAVANCHERRY,ATTINGAL. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2748 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009. ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in this revision 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-II, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.Appeal No.1005 of 2006 confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). Case is that petitioner borrowed Rupees one lakh from respondent No.1 on 3.9.2003 and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 3.1.2004. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Exts. P2 and P3. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and spoke to his case. According to the petitioner, respondent No.1 obtained signed blank cheque from him and misused the same. Courts below did not accept the explanation of petitioner and found petitioner guilty. 3. It is not disputed that Ext.P1 is signed by the petitioner and is drawn on the account maintained by him. He has no satisfactory explanation as to how else the cheque happened to be in the custody of respondent No.1 except Crl.R.P.No.2748/2009 2 ofcourse merely suggesting that respondent No.1 obtained the signed blank cheque. There is no circumstances or evidence to think so. Petitioner did not reply to the statutory notice. Courts below accepted the evidence of respondent No.1 and found petitioner guilty. On going through the judgments under challenge and hearing learned counsel I find no reason to interfere 4. Substantive sentence awarded by learned magistrate was modified by learned Additional Sessions Judge as simple imprisonment till rising of the court and compensation payable was modified as Rs.1,05,000/- with a default sentence of two months. Having regard to the nature of offence and the amount involved I find no reason to interfere with the sentence as modified by the appellate court at the instance of petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner requested that petitioner may be granted five months’ time to deposit compensation since petitioner, on account of financial difficulties is unable to raise the amount immediately. Considering circumstances stated by learned counsel and the amount involved, I am inclined to grant time to the petitioner till 20.1.2010 to deposit compensation. Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 20.1.2010 to deposit compensation in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court. It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance of 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 Crl.R.P.No.2748/2009 3 compensation within the above said period. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 22.1.2010 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks