IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2505 OF 2009() -------------------------------------------- CRA.445/2007 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-2), THRISSUR STC.976/2002 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S) - APPELLANT - ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------- RAJAN, S/O. KUMARAN, PUNNOKKARAN HOUSE, KOLAZHY P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. RESPONDENT(S) - RESPONDENTS - COMPLAINANT - NO PARTY: --------------- 1. E.V. KARUNAKARAN, S/O. E.K. VELAYUDHAN, ENJAKKAL HOUSE, PADUKKAD, VIYYUR P.O., THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2505 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of August, 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, Fast Track (Adhoc-II), Thrissur in Crl. Appeal No.445 of 2007 confirming conviction and sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from him and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 21.5.2002. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as seen from Exts.P2 and P3. Issue and service of notice on petitioner are proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Exhibit P7 is the reply. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as P.W.1 and stated to his case. Case of petitioner is that his friend introduced one Kamalji who offered to obtain a job for the unemployed son respondent No.1. Through mediation of petitioner, respondent No.1 paid Rs.1,00,000/- as advance to the said Kamalji to procure the job CRL. R.P. No.2505 of 2009 -: 2 :- but Kamalji absconded. Respondent No.1 obtained the cheque from him under pressure. Petitioner examined D.W.1, son of respondent No.1. Courts below did not accept the contention of petitioner and found him guilty. It is contended that finding of guilt is not correct. 3. Evidence of D.W.1, son of respondent No.1 is that his name has already been entered in the PSC rank list. He stated that his younger brother is employed. According to learned counsel, at the relevant time D.W.1 was not employed. Petitioner did not adduce evidence or bring out circumstances to prove or probabilise that contention. Assuming that D.W1 was not employed during the relevant time that did not mean that the incident happened as claimed by the petitioner. There is no evidence to show that the cheque happened to be in the custody of respondent No.1 in the circumstances pleaded by petitioner. The mere fact that petitioner sent a reply claiming that he is not liable is not sufficient. If in fact the cheque was obtained by force petitioner would have preferred complaint to the proper authority and informed his banker to stop payment. Nothing of that sort has happened. Hence contention of petitioner that respondent No.1 obtained the cheque by force cannot be accepted. It is admitted that petitioner signed Ext.P1 cheque which CRL. R.P. No.2505 of 2009 -: 3 :- is drawn on the account maintained by him. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.1. Having gone through the judgments under challenge and hearing counsel I find no reason to differ from the finding entered by the courts below. 4. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court and directed him to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to respondent No.1 as compensation. A default sentence of imprisonment for three months was also provided. Appellate court did not interfere with the sentence, direction for payment of compensation or the default sentence. I do not find reason to interfere with the sentence, direction for payment of compensation or the default sentence. 5. Learned counsel requested six months’ time to deposit compensation. Counsel states that on account of financial difficulties petitioner is unable to raise the amount immediately and that petitioner may be permitted to pay compensation directly to respondent No.1. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel and amount involved I am inclined to grant time till 30.12.2009 to deposit/pay compensation. Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. CRL. R.P. No.2505 of 2009 -: 4 :- Petitioner is granted time till 30.12.2009 to deposit compensation in the trail court as ordered by the learned magistrate. 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 compensation within the said period. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31.12.2009 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any, against petitioner will remain in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv