IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2252 of 2009 ------------------------------ CRA.589/2005 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD STC.3715/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHITTUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ACCUSED/APPELLANT: ---------------------------- SASIKUMAR,S/O.JAYENDRAN, THUPPALA HOUSE,KODUVAYUR, ETHANUR,CHITTUR TALUK,PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN SMT.AYSHA RAHMAN SMT.B.SHAMEERA SMT.M.ARCHANA SMT.M.SHAZIA SULTHANA RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ---------------------------------- 1. ARUMUGHAN,S/O.NANJAPPA GOUNDER, M.PUTHUR,MUTHALAMADA,CHITTOOR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI C S HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2252 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 13th day of July 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. Heard counsel for petitioner and public prosecutor who took notice for respondent No.2. 2. Petitioner is challenging concurrent finding entered by the courts below regarding due execution of a cheque for discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.50000/- from him on 15-03-2004 and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 05-04-2004. Dishonour of that cheque is proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Respondent No.1 issued notice to the petitioner intimating dishonour and demanding payment of the amount. That notice was returned unclaimed. Issue and return of notice as aforesaid are proved by Ext.P4 series and Ext.P5. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and claimed that petitioner issued the cheque for discharge of sum of Rs.50000/-. According to the petitioner, he borrowed Rs.15000/- from respondent No.1 and gave a signed blank cheque. He repaid Rs.10000/- but respondent No.1 has misused the cheque. Petitioner has not adduced evidence to show that the amount borrowed is only Rs.15000/- or that he repaid Rs.10000/-. It is seen from Ext.P5 that Crl.R.P.No.2252 of 2009 2 inspite of intimation given to the petitioner on 29-04-2009 he failed to collect the notice. That indicates that he was aware of the claim been made by respondent No.1. Courts below found that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.1. I have gone through the judgments under challenge and heard the counsel. I do not find reason to interfere with the concurrent finding regarding due execution of the cheque. 3. Learned magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Petitioner was directed to pay Rs.55000/- as compensation to respondent No.1 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Appellate court did not interfere with the sentence. Learned counsel submits that petitioner has been taken to custody ten days back and since then he is undergoing imprisonment. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner has paid Rs.55000/- to respondent No.1 but no document is produced to prove that. Hence I am unable to entertain that contention. Learned counsel requested that leniency may be shown in the matter of sentence and time may be granted for deposit of compensation. Having regard to the circumstances and the amount involved I am inclined to grant time till 30-12-2009 to deposit compensation. Substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner can be modified and confined to the sentence already undergone Crl.R.P.No.2252 of 2009 3 Resultantly this revision is allowed in part to the following extent: 1. Substantive sentence is modified and confined to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. 2. Petitioner is granted time till 30-12-2009 to deposit the amount of compensation in the trial court. In case of failure to deposit the amount within the said period, he has to undergo simple imprisonment as ordered by learned magistrate. 3. 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 the amount within the period aforesaid. 4. In case of non payment of compensation as above stated, petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31-12-2009 to receive the default sentence. Petitioner shall be released from jail if not required to be detained otherwise. Issue direction to the Superintendent of District Court, Kozhikode. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/