IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2063 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.361/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURTS (ADHOC), MAVELIKKARA CC.755/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KAYAMKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT: ----------------------------------------------------------- ANILKUMAR @ KUTTAN, AGED 35, S/O.THANKAPPAN NAIR, KANNIYIL VADAKKATHIL VEEDU, PUTHIYOORKALA MURI, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.R.SUNIL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. K.KOSHY, S/O.KOCHUNNI, NALLOOR VEEDU, PATHIYOOR KIZHAKKU MURI, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2063 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 29th day of June 2009 ORDER This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track No-1), Mavelikara in Criminal Appeal No.361 of 2007. Case arose on a private complaint preferred by respondent No.1. He alleged that petitioner borrowed Rs.50,000/- from him and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 03-06-06. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Ext.P2 and P3. On getting intimation respondent No.1 issued notice to the petitioner intimating dishonour and demanding payment of the amount. Issue and service of notice are proved by Ext.P4 to P6. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and claimed that petitioner borrowed Rs.50,000/- from him and for discharge of that liability issued the cheque. According to the petitioner he had borrowed some money from another person agreeing to pay interest at the rate of Rs.5/- and the cheque was given as security. Crl.R.P.No.2063 of 2009 2 Courts below were not inclined to accept the contention of petitioner and found him guilty. That finding is in challenge in this revision. 2. So far as transaction and execution of the cheque is concerned evidence is given by respondent No.1. As against that, petitioner merely suggested to respondent No.1, which the latter denied, that he borrowed some money from another person and the cheque in question was given to that person as security. Petitioner did not adduce any evidence on his side or bring out any circumstances to probabalise that version. Petitioner was not able to discredit the version of respondent No.1 regarding transaction and execution of the cheque. Petitioner did not also reply to the notice served on him. It is in these circumstances that courts below accepted the case of respondent No.1 and found petitioner guilty. On going through the judgments under challenge and hearing learned counsel for petitioner I do not find any illegality in the judgment under challenge requiring interference with the conviction. Crl.R.P.No.2063 of 2009 3 3. Learned magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and directed payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only). Default sentence of imprisonment for three months was also provided. Appellate court dismissed the appeal. Learned counsel submitted that sentence imposed is excessive. He requested six months' time to deposit compensation. According to learned counsel petitioner is unable to raise the amount immediately. 4. Having regard to the nature of offence and object of legislation I am satisfied that simple imprisonment till rising of the court is sufficient in the ends of justice. There is however no reason to interfere with the direction for payment of compensation or the default sentence. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel petitioner is granted three months' time to deposit compensation in the trial court. Resultantly this revision is allowed in part to the following extent; (i) Substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner is Crl.R.P.No.2063 of 2009 4 modified as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. (ii) Petitioner is granted three months' time from today to deposit compensation in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court. In case of failure petitioner shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the learned magistrate. (iii) It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance of the direction for deposit 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 receipt of the amount within the period aforesaid. Petitioner shall appear in the trail court on 01-10--09 to receive the sentence. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/