IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 1659 OF 2009() --------------------------------------------- CRA.51/2008 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KOTTAYAM ST.1111/2006 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(MOBILE), KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------- PRMJI PURUSHOTHAMAN, OFFICER, CANARA BANK, VAILATHOOR BRANCH, MALAPPURAM, PRESENTLY WORKING AS OFFICER, CANARA BANK, THALAYOLAPARAMPU BRANCH, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.JINU JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. GEORGE JOSEPH, THEKKANATT HOUSE, KUMARANELLOORE P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.1659 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in the revision which will not be prejudicial to respondent No.1. 2. According to respondent No.1, petitioner availed a loan of Rs.50,000/- from him and for discharge of that liability issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 17.10.2006 for the said amount. Cheque was dishonoured as “account closed/transferred to Vailathoor”. Respondent No.1 issued notice to the petitioner intimating dishonour and demanding payment. Notice was served on petitioner but he neither replied nor complied with the demand. Hence the complaint. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as P.W.1 and spoke to his case. Dishonour of the cheque for the above reason is proved by respondent No.1. Exhibits P3 and P5 show issue and service of notice on the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he had borrowed only Rs.25,000/- and at that time had given a signed blank cheque which was misused. Petitioner did not adduce any evidence in that line. Plea raised by the petitioner is neither proved nor probabilised. He did not CRL. R.P. No.1659 of 2009 -: 2 :- also reply to the statutory notice served on him. In these circumstances there is little reason to interfere with the concurrent findings entered by the courts below as to the due execution of the cheque and failure of the petitioner to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. Learned magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for three months while directing payment of Rs.50,000/- as compensation. Appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the offence and the amount involved, I am satisfied that simple imprisonment till rising of the court will be sufficient in the ends of justice. There is no reason to interfere with the direction for payment of compensation. 4. At this stage counsel for petitioner requested four months' time to deposit the amount. Having regarding to the nature of the offence, the amount involved and object of legislation I am inclined to grant three months' time from this day to deposit the compensation. Resultantly, this revision is allowed in part in the following lines: (i) Substantive sentence awarded to CRL. R.P. No.1659 of 2009 -: 3 :- the petitioner is modified as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. (ii) Petitioner is directed to deposit Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) for payment to respondent No.1 as compensation in the trial court within three months from this day. (iii) It is made clear that it shall be sufficient compliance condition (ii) 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 three months. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 28.8.2009 to receive the sentence. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv