IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2009 / 11TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2097 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.375/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-I, KOTTAYAM ST.1940/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- P.S.THEJOVATHY, W/O.RAVEENDRAN,AGED 40 YEARS, R/AT.PAINUMOOTTIL HOUSE, THONIPPARA, PONKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.TOM JOSE SMT.PADMA PRIYA P. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------ 1. MARIAMMA T., MADATHILPARAMBU HOUSE, VELLOOTHURUTHY, KUZHIMATTOM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S.HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2097 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2009. ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to make in this revision which is not prejudicial to her. Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. 2. Petitioner faced trial in the court learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Kottayam in S.T.No.1940 of 2006 on a complaint preferred by respondent No.1. According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.75,000/- from her and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 1.3.2006. That cheque was returned for insufficiency of funds as proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Respondent No.1 issued statutory notice to the petitioner intimating dishonour and demanding payment of the amount. Issue and service of notice on the petitioner are proved by Exts.P4 to P7. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and testified to her case. Ext.P1 is the cheque dated 1.3.2006. Petitioner contended that respondent No.1 is not known to her and that her husband had taken a loan of Rs.25,000/- from respondent No.1 through PW3 and gave her cheque as security. That contention did not prevail with the learned magistrate. Petitioner was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. Petitioner took up the matter in appeal. Learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed her conviction but Crl.R.P.No.2097/2009 2 modified the sentence. Petitioner is aggrieved and has come up in revision. It is contended that execution of the cheque is not proved. 3. Respondent No.1 as PW1 has given evidence regarding transaction leading to Ext.P1. PW2 is her brother. He supported respondent No.1. According to the petitioner, her husband had taken a loan of Rs.25,000/- from respondent No.1 through PW3 and her husband gave her cheque as security. PW3 gave evidence in support of respondent No.1. She stated that respondent No.1 was her neighbour and at that time husband of petitioner was working with her. Petitioner and her husband approached her on 1.1.2006 and requested for a loan of Rs.75,000/-. Since PW3 had no money with her, she, along with petitioner and her husband approached respondent No.1 who advanced Rs.75,000/- to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is not reliable. But, courts below found that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs 1 to 3. There is no evidence to show that the transaction was between husband of petitioner and respondent No.1 and that the amount borrowed was Rs.25,000/-. It is seen that inspite of respondent No.1 serving statutory notice on petitioner intimating dishonour of cheque for Rs.75,000/- and demanding payment, petitioner did not reply. These circumstances have been taken by the courts below to hold in favour of due execution of the cheque as deposed by respondent No.1. I do not find reason to interfere with the finding of fact entered by the courts below. Crl.R.P.No.2097/2009 3 4. Learned magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. Appellate court modified the sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court and directed petitioner to pay Rs.75,000/- as compensation to respondent No.1. Default sentence of imprisonment for two months was also provided. Having regard to the nature of offence and the amount involved I do not find reason to interfere with the sentence as modified by the appellate court or the direction for payment of compensation or the default sentence provided. 5. Learned counsel requested four months' time to the petitioner to deposit compensation in the trial court. Learned counsel states that petitioner is not able to raise the amount immediately. Considering the request and the circumstances stated by learned counsel, I am inclined to grant three months' time to the petitioner to deposit compensation in the trial court. In case of failure, petitioner has to undergo the default sentence provided by the appellate court. Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted three months' time from today to deposit the compensation in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court. It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance of direction for payment of compensation if petitioner paid the amount of compensation to respondent No.1 through her counsel in the trial court and respondent No.1 filed a statement in the trial court through her counsel Crl.R.P.No.2097/2009 4 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. Crl.M.A.No.6361 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks