IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2548 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.300/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)I, KOTTAYAM ST.2259/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(MOBILE), KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------- SANTHOSH P.CHACKO, PATHITHAZHE HOUSE, ANICKADU WEST P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.PRATHAPAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS --------------------------- 1. T.R.VIJAYAKUMAR, THADATHUM KUZHIYIL HOUSE, THIRUNAKKARA P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S.HRITHWIK FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2548 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of August, 2009. ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in this revision which is not prejudicial to him. Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. 2. The concurrent finding entered by the courts below regarding execution of a cheque for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability is under challenge in this revision. Petitioner faced trial in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II (Mobile), Kottayam in S.T.No.2259 of 2007 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.50,000/- from him and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 12.12.2004. Its dishonour for insufficiency of funds is proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1. Petitioner denied that he had any transaction with respondent No.1 as alleged . Respondent No.1 denied the suggestion put to him that petitioner borrowed Rs.10,000/- from Jayaprakash and gave signed blank cheque as security and that cheque leaf has been misused. Courts below did not accept the explanation of petitioner. 3. As regards the execution of cheque there is evidence of Crl.R.P.No.2548/2009 2 respondent No.1. Though it is contended by petitioner that he had handed over the cheque to Jayaprakash in connection with a transaction he had with the said Jayaprakash, there is no evidence or circumstance to hold so. Petitioner did not reply to the statutory notice served on him. There was nothing to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.1. It is not disputed that Ext.P1 contained the signature of petitioner and is drawn on the account maintained by him. In the circumstances conviction of petitioner does not require interference. 4. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- with a default sentence of imprisonment for two months. Appellate court has modified the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court, set aside direction for payment of fine and directed payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to respondent No.1 with a default sentence of imprisonment for two months. Having regard to the nature of offence, object of legislation and the amount involved there is no reason to interfere with the substantive sentence as modified or direction for payment of compensation and default sentence imposed by the appellate court, at the instance of petitioner. 5. Learned counsel submitted that since petitioner, on account of financial difficulties is unable to raise the amount immediately he may be granted six months’ time to deposit compensation. Having regard to the circumstances stated by learned counsel and the amount involved, I am inclined to grant time to the petitioner till 21.12.2009 to deposit compensation. Crl.R.P.No.2548/2009 3 Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 21.12.2009 to deposit compensation in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court. It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance of 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 above said period. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 22.12.2009 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks