IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2798 OF 2009() ------------------------------------------- CRA.147/2006 OF SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA CC.125/2003 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ---------------------------------------------- PRASAD.M.J.CENTRAL GARAGE, DEEPA JUNCTION, RAMACHIRA, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT, COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MATHEW C.GEORGE, CHALAKUZHI VEEDU, POWER HOUSE ROAD, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA 2. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S. HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2798 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th 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 takes notice for respondent No.2. 2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta in Crl.Appeal No.147 of 2006 confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to respondent No.1, petitioner issued cheque for Rs.70,000/- for the discharge of a liability. Exhibit P1 is that cheque. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds which is proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Issue and service of statutory notice on petitioner are proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Contention of petitioner is that he had transaction with respondent No.1 in the year 1995 and at that time given signed blank cheque. He paid the whole principle amount and what remained is only interest. Respondent No.1 misused the cheque. 3. As regards execution of the cheque respondent No.1 gave CRL. R.P. No.2798 of 2009 -: 2 :- evidence as P.W.1. He stated about the transaction and claimed that petitioner issued the cheque for repayment of the amount. It is admitted by petitioner also that he had transaction with P.W.1 though according to him in the year 1995 and he had paid the principal amount. There is no evidence to show that transaction was in the year 1995 or that any portion of the amount has already been paid to respondent No.1. Petitioner in spite of being served with statutory notice did not reply to it. There is no reason to disbelieve the transaction or execution of cheque. Courts below in the circumstances are justified in holding in favour of due execution of the cheque. I find no reason to differ. Petitioner failed to rebut the presumption under Sec.139 of the Act. Hence there is no scope for interference with conviction of petitioner. 4. In modification of the sentence and amount of compensation awarded by the learned magistrate, appellate court modified substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court and directed payment of compensation of Rs.70,000/- to respondent No.1. Default sentence of imprisonment for one month was also provided. Having regard to the nature of offence and amount involved I find no reason to interfere with the substantive sentence and compensation as modified by the appellate court or the default CRL. R.P. No.2798 of 2009 -: 3 :- sentence imposed by that court, at the instance of petitioner. 5. Learned counsel requested six months’ time to deposit compensation. It is stated that on account of financial difficulty petitioner is unable to raise the amount immediately. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined to grant time till 28.11.2009 to deposit compensation. Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 28.11.2009 to deposit compensation as ordered by the appellate court. 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 1.12.2009 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any against petitioner will remain in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv CRL. R.P. No.2798 of 2009 -: 4 :-