IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2673 OF 2009() --------------------------------------------- CRA.288/2008 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KOTTAYAM CC.678/2005 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VAIKOM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S) – APPELLANT – COMPLAINANT : -------------------------------------------------------------------- K.M.HAMSA, KANDATHIL HOUSE, ADIYAMKARA, VADAYAR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S) – RESPONDENT – COMPLAINANT : ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. GOPINATHAN NAIR, MANIAMTHADATHIL, MANJOOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. 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 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2673 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th day of August, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Petitioner faced trial in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vaikom in C.C.No.678 of 2005 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”) on a complaint preferred by respondent No.1. According to respondent No.1 petitioner borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- from him and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 10.5.2005. Dishonour of that cheque for insufficiency of funds is 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 P.W1 and testified to his case. According to the petitioner, his son borrowed Rs.70,000/- from respondent No.1 and his signed blank cheque was given as security. That cheque has been misused. It is contended that finding of the courts below regarding execution of the cheque is not correct. According to the learned counsel the very fact that the cheque is typewritten indicated that it was filled up by respondent No.1. 2. Learned counsel has taken me through the evidence of CRL. R.P. No.2673 of 2009 -: 2 :- P.W.1 (respondent No.1). He denied the suggestion that petitioner’s son borrowed Rs.70,000/- from him and signed blank cheque of petitioner was taken by him. He claimed that cheque was got typewritten and given to him by the petitioner himself and it was signed in his presence. From the mere fact that the cheque is typewritten I am unable to draw any inference that it was done by or at the instance of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 has given evidence regarding the transaction. Courts below found evidence of respondent No.1 as reliable. Petitioner has not replied to the statutory notice. If really petitioner had no transaction with respondent No.1 and the amount borrowed was only Rs.70,000/- as claimed by him necessarily he would have replied to the notice. No explanation is given for not replying to the notice. There is also no evidence or circumstance to hold that the transaction was as contended by petitioner. In the circumstances there is no reason to interfere with the finding of courts below regarding execution of the cheque. 3. In modification of the sentence awarded by the learned magistrate appellate court imposed only simple imprisonment till rising of the court. Direction for payment of compensation and default sentence were confirmed. There is no reason to interfere with the CRL. R.P. No.2673 of 2009 -: 3 :- direction for deposit of compensation or default sentence at the instance of petitioner. 4. Learned counsel requested five months’ time to deposit compensation. It is stated that on account of financial difficulty petitioner is unable to raise the amount immediately. Having regard to the circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined to grant time till 18.01.2010 to deposit compensation. Resultantly, this petition revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 18.01.2010 to deposit compensation. 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 20.01.2010 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any against petitioner will remain in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv