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. 1725 of 2009(C) ----------------------------------- CRA.473/2005 of SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR ST.222/2004 of JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------- V.S. PREMLAL, S/O. SREEDHARAN, VADAKKUMCHERY HOUSE, ENGADIYOOR P.O. BY MR.K.N.PADMAKUMAR – ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MANOJ K.S., S/O. SEKHARAN, KIZHUKKUMPATTUKARA HOUSE, NADAVARAMBU DESOM, VELUKARA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P.NO. 1725 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009 ORDER This revision arises from the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Thrissur in Criminal Appeal No.473/2005. Conviction of the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”) and the direction for payment of compensation were confirmed but substantive sentence was modified as Simple Imprisonment till rising of the court. Petitioner is still aggrieved. 2. Respondent No.1 claimed that petitioner was conducting a 'Kuri' in the name and style “Thampuran Finance and Chits, Pullur” and for payment of the kuri debt, petitioner issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 20.4.2000 for the sum of Rs.8,280/-. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Petitioner was intimated about the dishonour and he was called upon to make payment but, he did not comply. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to P6. Dishonour Crl.R.P.No.1725/09 2 of the cheque for the said reason is proved by Exts.P2 and P6. Issue and service of notice are proved by Exts.P3 to P5. Contention raised by the petitioner is that he had no connection with M/s. Thampuran Finance and Chits, that concern is being run by one Suresh, he also had joined in a few kuries run by said Suresh and as security, gave six blank cheques to the said Suresh. Courts below were not inclined to accept that contention particularly as there was no reply from the side of the petitioner in response to the notice served on him. Contention now raised is that due execution of the cheque is not proved. 3. It is admitted that Ext.P1 contained the signature of the petitioner. As to the execution of the cheque, there is the evidence of respondent No.1 as PW1 which the courts below accepted. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 as to the execution of the cheque. Conviction of the petitioner does not require interference. 4. While confirming direction for payment of compensation and imposing default sentence, appellate court modified the substantive sentence to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court. There is no reason to Crl.R.P.No.1725/09 3 interfere with the sentence and the direction for payment of compensation. 5. Learned counsel submitted that in connection with a few other similar cases as well, petitioner is undergoing imprisonment in central jail, viyoor, Thrissur since 22.5.2009. Thus petitioner has already suffered the substantive sentence. This revision petition is dismissed. But petitioner is granted three weeks time to deposit compensation in the trial court as directed by the appellate court. Petitioner shall be released forthwith from the jail, if not required to be detained in connection with other cases. Issue intimation to the Superintendent of the Jail concerned. THOMAS P. JOSEPH , JUDGE Acd Crl.R.P.No.1725/09 4