IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2056 OF 2009() -------------------------------------------------- CRA.19/2007 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK-III) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM S.T. NO.159 OF 2005, JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-VII, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------------- K.RADHAMANI, GEETHA BHAVAN, CHENKALLOOR, POOJAPURA, TRIVANDRUM. NOW RESIDING AT SIVASHAKHI, THEVALAKKAD KUTHIRAKULAM.P.O., VEMBAYAM TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SECRETARY, TAXI DRIVERS CO-LOPERATIVE- SOCIETY LTD NO.412,KARAKUAM , TRIVANDRUM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2056 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009 O R D E R -------------- This revision arises at the instance of petitioner who faced trial for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate- VII, Thiruvananthapuram in S.T. No.159 of 2005. Appellate court while confirming conviction modified the sentence. 2. Respondent No.2 is a registered Society of which P.W.1 is the Secretary. It is his case that petitioner had chitty transaction with the Society, prized the same for Rs.1,00,000/- and received the amount. Petitioner undertook to pay the amount due in installments at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per installment. Petitioner paid upto the 15th installment and defaulted payment of the rest. For the amount due petitioner issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 18.4.2001 for Rs.41,500/-. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Ext.P2, memo dated 18.4.2001. On getting dishonour intimation as per Ext.P3, respondent No.2 issued notice to the petitioner on 12.6.2001 intimating dishonour and demanding payment of the amount. Issue and service of statutory notice on petitioner are proved by Exts.P4 to P5. P.W.1 gave evidence on behalf of respondent No.2 as above and CRL. R.P. No.2056 of 2009 -: 2 :- claimed that petitioner issued the cheque for the discharge of a legally recoverable debt/liability. Petitioner when questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stated that two signed blank cheques were taken from her at the time she received the Kuri amount. She paid the entire amount to respondent No.2 of which some payments were made through Thrideep Kumar, an employee of respondent No.2. That contention did not find favour with the courts below. 3. There is no dispute regarding the cause of dishonour or issue and service of notice on petitioner. Petitioner challenged only the finding regarding execution of the cheque. Regarding that, there is the evidence of P.W.1, Secretary of the Society. Petitioner does not dispute that she had joined the Kuri conducted by respondent No.2, prized the same and received the amount. She also did not dispute her liability to pay future installments. Her claim is that she has already discharged the liability and the signed blank cheque given at the time of receiving the Kuri amount was misused. Petitioner did not produce oral or documentary evidence to show that she has paid the Kuri amount fully. If she had made payments she could have produced receipts or summoned the relevant documents from respondent No.2 CRL. R.P. No.2056 of 2009 -: 3 :- to prove payments after the 15th installment. That was not done. Instead, she merely contended by suggesting that she paid some amount through an employee of respondent No.2. Nothing is brought out to disbelieve the evidence of P..W1 regarding due execution of the cheque. Petitioner did not reply to the notice served on her. In the circumstances there is little reason to interfere with the conviction of petitioner. 4. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and directed her to pay Rs.42,000/- as compensation. In default of payment sentence of simple imprisonment for two months was provided. 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 and direction for payment of compensation with default sentence as modified by the appellate court. 5. Learned counsel requested three months’ time to deposit compensation. Counsel submits that petitioner is unable to raise the amount immediately. Considering the submission made by counsel I CRL. R.P. No.2056 of 2009 -: 4 :- am inclined to grant three months’ time to petitioner to deposit compensation in the trial court. Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted three 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 payment of compensation if petitioner paid the compensation to respondent No.2 through her counsel in the trial court and respondent No.2 filed a statement in the trial court through his counsel acknowledging receipt of compensation within the said period of three months. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 5.10.2009 to receive the sentence. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv