IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2749 OF 2009() --------------------------------------------- CRA.88/2007 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ST.605/2006 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------------------- A.CHANDRAN, T.C.5/340, KAILAS, INDIRA NAGAR, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. A.VIKRAMAN, T.C.X/357-A, AISWARYA NILAYAM, PUTHUMANA, OOLANPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S. HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2749 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Petitioner, aggrieved by his conviction and sentence for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has come up in revision. He faced trial in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-VIII, Thiruvananthapuram in S.T. No.605 of 2006 on a complaint preferred by respondent No.1. According to respondent No.1 petitioner borrowed Rs.1,25,000/- from him and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 15.1.2004. Dishonour of that cheque for insufficiency of funds is proved by Ext.2. Issue and service of statutory notice on petitioner are proved by Exts.P3 to P5. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as P.W.1 and stated to his case. Petitioner contented that to facilitate respondent No.1 availing a loan he gave his signed blank cheque to respondent No.1 and that cheque has been misused. He stated that after service of statutory notice respondent No.1 told him that he is not intending to prefer any complaint. Hence there was no reply. Courts below did not accept that contention and found petitioner guilty. That finding is under challenge. 2. It is admitted that Ext.P1 is signed by the petitioner, drawn on the account maintained by him and given to respondent No.1 CRL. M.A. No.2749 of 2009 -: 2 :- though according to petitioner, to facilitate respondent No.1 avail a loan. That suggestion was denied by respondent No.1. On the other hand he asserted that petitioner borrowed Rs.1,25,000/- from him and for repayment of that amount issued the cheque. There is no evidence or circumstance to show that signed cheque was given to respondent No.1 in the circumstances pleaded by petitioner. It is also difficult to believe that having issued the statutory notice threatening to initiate legal proceedings on account of non-payment respondent No.1 would have told petitioner that he would not prefer any complaint. I am not impressed by the explanation offered by petitioner for not replying to the notice. Courts below found in favour of due execution of the cheque. On hearing counsel and going through the judgments under challenge I find no reason to interfere with the conviction of petitioner. 3. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. He was directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Appellate court modified substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court and compensation payable as Rs.1,25,000/- while retaining the default sentence. Having regard to the nature of offence and amount involved I find no reason to interfere with the substantive sentence, compensation as modified by the appellate court or the default CRL. M.A. No.2749 of 2009 -: 3 :- sentence imposed at the instance of petitioner. 4. Learned counsel requested six months’ time to deposit compensation. It is stated that on account of financial difficulty petitioner is unable to raise the amount immediately. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined to grant time till 20.01.2010 to deposit compensation in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court. Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 20.01.2010 to deposit compensation as ordered by the appellate court. 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 the compensation within the said period. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 21.01.2010 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any against petitioner will remain in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv