IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2009 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1680 of 2009() --------------------------------------- CRA.499/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT-II, MAVELIKKARA CC.304/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, HARIPAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------------------- B.PADMAKUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.LATE BHAKARAPILLAI, PUTHUVAPADIKKAL VEEDU, VETTUVENI MURI, HARIPAD P.O. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.K.SARADA, BHAGAVATHIPARAMBIL VEEDU, AKAMKUDI MURI, PALLIPAD VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. JAYAKRISHNAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ----------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 1680 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2009 O R D E R Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in the revision petition and which is not prejudicial to her. Learned Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. 2. Petitioner challenges the legality, regularity and propriety of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Mavelikkara in Criminal Appeal No.499/06 confirming his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the NI Act'). Case of respondent No.1 is that petitioner owed Rs.25,000/- to him and when he demanded repayment, petitioner issued Ext.P1, cheque for the said amount which was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and in spite of service of statutory notice, petitioner did not pay the amount. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to P6. Ext.P1 is the cheque the dishonour of which is proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Crl.R.P.No.1682 of 2009 2 Service of statutory notice on the petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Contention raised by the petitioner is that he is unemployed, respondent No.1 and her daughter along with one Krishnakumar approached the petitioner and demanded Rs.25,000/- for giving him an employment in a company known as RMP Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, he gave Rs.10,000/- in cash and a signed blank cheque for the balance amount. 3. Contention raised in the revision petition is that conviction of the petitioner is not proper. But I am unable to accept that contention as petitioner did not attempt to prove or probabilise the circumstances pleaded by him. He has not proved or probabilised how the signed cheque leaf happened to be in the custody of respondent No.1. Petitioner did not even respond to the statutory notice served on him. Courts below have considered the evidence and found in favour of due execution of the cheque. There is no reason to interfere with the conviction of the petitioner. 4. Learned magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and directed him Crl.R.P.No.1682 of 2009 3 to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation. Appellate court did not interfere with the with the sentence. Counsel for petitioner submitted that the sentence imposed is excessive. He also submitted that petitioner is making earnest effort to discharge the liability, he is involved in other similar cases and it requires three months time for the petitioner to dispose of his property and clear the liability and hence he may be granted three months time. Considering the facts and circumstances explained by learned counsel for petitioner, I am inclined to allow that request. In the result, this revision is allowed in part in the following lines. 1) Substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. 2) Petitioner is granted three months time to deposit compensation in the trial court as ordered by the courts below. 3) It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance of condition No.2, if petitioner paid the compensation to respondent No.1 through her counsel in the trial court and respondent No.1 files a statement Crl.R.P.No.1682 of 2009 4 in that court through her counsel acknowledging receipt of the amount within the said period of three months. 4) Petitioner shall appear in the court below on 7.9.2009 to receive the sentence. Crl.M.P.No.5116/2009 shall stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. bkn/-