IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1732 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.59/2004 of SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY CC.116/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- T.DHANESH, S/O.GOVINDAN, AGED 37 YEARS, PARAKKANDY VEEDU, MUDAPPATHUR, P.O.PARAL. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS --------------------------------------- 1. D.KRISHNA KARANTH, S/O.RAMACHANDRA KARANTH, DEVASSY HOUSE, P.O.PARAL. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI RAVINDRA BABU FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1732 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009. ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to make and which is not prejudicial to him. Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. 2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Thalassery in Crl.Appeal No.59 of 2004 confirming conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act). 3. According to respondent No.1, petitioner owed Rs.10,000/- to him and for the discharge of that liability issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 21.11.2000. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. On getting dishonour intimation respondent No.1 issued notice to the petitioner intimating dishonour and demanding payment. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to P7. Ext.P1 is the cheque in question. Dishonour of the cheque for the above stated reason is proved by Exts.P2 and 3. Issue and service of notice are not disputed and are proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Ext.P7 is the reply sent by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he had no transaction with respondent No.1. He had some transactions with one Bhaskaran to whom he gave signed blank cheque. He does not know how that cheque happened to be in the Crl.R.P.No.1732/2009 2 possession of respondent No.1. He discharged the liability of said Bhaskaran. 4. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and testified to his case. He denied the suggestion that petitioner had given signed blank cheque to Bhaskaran. There is no evidence to show that petitioner had any transaction with said Bhaskaran and at any rate in connection with that transaction, he handed over Ext.P1, cheque in blank form to said Bhaskaran. Nothing is brought out to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.1 Courts below are therefore justified in holding in favour of due execution of the cheque. There is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings entered by the courts below as to the due execution of the cheque and the failure of the petitioner to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Act. Hence conviction of the petitioner is legal and proper and required no interference. 5. Appellate court did not interfere with the substantive sentence of imprisonment for one month awarded by the trial court. Trial court had issued a direction for payment Rs.10,000/- as compensation providing a default sentence. That also was not interfered by the appellate court. When a court orderes payment of compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, default sentence can be imposed. Therefore petitioner has to undergo imprisonment in case of non-payment of compensation. However, considering the nature of the offence and facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to think that simple imprisonment till rising of the court and payment of compensation, as ordered by the courts below is sufficient in the ends of justice. In case of failure to deposit compensation, petitioner shall undergo Crl.R.P.No.1732/2009 3 simple imprisonment for one month. 6. Learned counsel requested two months' time to deposit the compensation in the trial court. Considering the amount involved and the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant one month's time to deposit the compensation. Resultantly, this revision petition allowed in part to the following extent: i. Substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. ii. Petitioner is granted one month's time from today to deposit the compensation in the trial court. In case of non-payment, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. iii. It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance with the direction for payment of compensation 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 the receipt of the compensation within the aforesaid time. iv. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 6.7.2009 to receive the sentence. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks