IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1912 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.55/2008 of I ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE CC.10/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, PERAMBRA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- K.KRISHNAN @ KADIYAN KRISHNAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN, PRANAM HOUSE, VALIYAPOYIL, OLAT POST, TRIKARIPUR VIA., KOLAKKAD AMSOM AND DESOM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------ 1. VILASAN K., S/O.GOPALAN, AGED 40 YEARS, KOMATH HOUSE, CHENODI AMSOM, CHERUVALLUR, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S.HRITHWIK FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.6.2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1912 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of June, 2009. ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to make in this revision which is not prejudicial to him. Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. 2. Petitioner faced trial in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Perambra in C.C.No.10 of 2007 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.80,000/- from him on 1.2.2006 undertaking to repay the same within three months and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 30.5.2006. That cheque was dishonourd for insufficiency of funds as proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Respondent No.1 issued notice to the petitioner on 9.11.2006 intimating dishonour and demanding payment of the amount. Notice was served on him on 13.11.2006. Since petitioner did not pay the amount complaint was preferred. Issue and service of notice on petitioner are proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1. Case of petitioner is that in the year 2004 for the purpose of giving appointment to him as teacher in a leave vacancy in Kuttamath Memorial School its manager, Prakash Narayanan demanded Rupees one lakh from him and on that occasion Crl.R.P.No.1912/2009 2 he gave Rs.50,000/- in cash and a blank cheque as security for the balance sum of Rs.50,000/-. Later, petitioner paid the balance sum of Rs.50,000/- also to the manager but he did not return the cheque. It is the further case of petitioner that subsequently he lost the job in that school and Prakash Narayanan has misused the cheque and caused respondent No.1 to file the complaint. Suggestion put to respondent No.1 in that line was denied by him. Courts below accepted the evidence of respondent No.1 and found the petitioner guilty. It is contended in this revision that courts below went wrong in holding that petitioner issued the cheque in question. 3. So far as execution of the cheque is concerned, respondent No.1 has given evidence as PW1. Nothing was brought out to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 regarding transaction and execution of the cheque. It is seen that inspite of being served with notice of dishonour petitioner did not reply. If actually no such amount was due from him, petitioner would have replied to the notice served on him. Failure of petitioner to reply to the notice is also a circumstance taken into account by the courts below. In these circumstances I do not find reason to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.1 regarding the transaction. In the absence of any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the findings of courts below, no interference is called for in revision against the Crl.R.P.No.1912/2009 3 finding that petitioner issued the cheque for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. 4. Learned magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay compensation of Rs.80,000/- to respondent No.1 under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Appellate court modified the substantive sentence as one till rising of the court. Direction for payment of compensation was confirmed. Default sentence of imprisonment for two months was provided. Having regard to the nature of offence and the object of legislation there is little reason to interfere with the sentence as modified by the appellate court or, the direction for payment of compensation and the default sentence. 5. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted six months' time to deposit compensation in the trial court. According to learned counsel, petitioner is in financial difficulties and is unable to raise Rs.80,000/- immediately. Considering the request and circumstances stated by learned counsel, I am inclined to grant four months' time to the petitioner to deposit compensation in the trial court. Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted four Crl.R.P.No.1912/2009 4 months' time from today to deposit the compensation in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court failing which he shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the appellate court. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 21.10.2009 to receive the sentence. Crl.M.A.No.5874 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks