IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2043 OF 2009() --------------------------------------------- CRA.683/2007 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC), PALAKKAD ST.3377/2006 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------- RADHA VIJAYAKUMAR, W/O.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS, DOOR NO.365, RAILWAY QUARTERS, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. A.V.MOHANDAS, S/O.VELUKUTTY, AGED 26 YEARS, AISWARYA, VRINDAVAN COLONY, KODUMBU, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S. HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2043 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of June, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass which is not prejudicial to him. Public Prosecutor took notice for respondent No.2. 2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Palakkad in Crl. Appeal No.683 of 2007 confirming conviction of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act but modifying sentence. 3. Case arose on a private complaint preferred by respondent No.1. He alleged that for discharge of a liability to him petitioner issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 26.7.2006 for Rs.75,000/-. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds which is proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Respondent No.1 issued statutory notice to the petitioner intimating dishonour and demanding payment. Issue and service of statutory notice are proved by Exts.P3 and P4 series. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as P.W.1 and stated that petitioner borrowed Rs.85,000/- from him and in partial discharge of that liability issued cheque for Rs.75,000/-. Case pleaded by petitioner in the trial court CRL. R.P. No.2043 of 2009 -: 2 :- is that she had no transaction with respondent No.1, nor had she issued any cheque. She had left a blank cheque in her vehicle and respondent No.1 who stealthily got it misused the same. Courts below were not impressed by that contention of petitioner and found her guilty. That finding is under challenge in this revision. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that due execution of the cheque is not proved. 4. It is true that going by the suggestion to P.W.1 in cross- examination petitioner does not admit that she signed Ext.P1. The contention of petitioner cannot be accepted since assuming that petitioner had lost unsigned blank cheque from her vehicle she would have in the normal course preferred a complaint to the authorities concerned. Nothing of that sort was done. She would have also informed her bank about the loss of cheque and given instruction for stopping payment as per that cheque. That also did not happen. A further fact to be noted is that in spite of respondent No.1 informing petitioner about dishonour of the cheque for Rs.75,000/- and claiming that petitioner issued that cheque for repayment of the loan and demanding payment of the amount petitioner did not reply to the notice. Learned magistrate has observed that none of the contesting parties took steps to get the signature in the cheque examined by expert. Learned magistrate was constrained to compare the CRL. R.P. No.2043 of 2009 -: 3 :- signature with the admitted signature of petitioner. Learned magistrate observed that no dissimilarity could be noticed between the disputed and admitted signatures of petitioner. Learned magistrate further observed that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W1 about the transaction and issue of cheque in his favour. So holding, petitioner was found guilty. Appellate court has confirmed that finding. I have gone through the judgments under challenge and I do not find reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W1 regarding the transaction and due execution of the cheque. Petitioner cannot successfully challenge her conviction. 5. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and directed her to pay Rs.75,000/- as compensation. In default of payment, sentence of two months’ simple imprisonment was also was ordered. Appellate court while retaining the direction for payment of compensation and default sentence modified substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. I do not find reason to interfere with the sentence as modified by the appellate court, direction for payment of compensation and the default sentence as confirmed by that court. 6. Counsel for petitioner requested six months’ time to deposit the compensation. Counsel submits that petitioner is a lady and is unable to raise the amount immediately. Considering the CRL. R.P. No.2043 of 2009 -: 4 :- circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined to grant five months’ time to the petitioner to deposit compensation in the trial court. Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted five months’ time from this day to deposit compensation in the trial court. It is made clear that it shall be sufficient compliance of the direction for deposit of compensation if petitioner paid the compensation to respondent No.1 through her 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 28.11.2009 to receive the sentence. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv