IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2527 OF 2009() --------------------------------------------- CRA.867/2007 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-IV, TRIVANDRUM ST.529/2006 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-VI THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------- K.KUMARI MRUDULA,D/O.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, LEKSHMI NIVAS,HOUSE NO.99,ARAYALLOOR, ELLUVILA NAGAR,THIRUMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.BALAKRISHNAN,S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, PULIVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,H.NO.150, CHALAKUZHI ROAD,SCT NAGAR,PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 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 06/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2527 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th day of August, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Notice to respondent No.1 is returned unserved. In view of the order I propose to pass in this revision which is not prejudicial to him further notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with. Heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor. 2. Concurrent findings entered by the courts below regarding due execution of the cheque is under challenge. According to respondent No.1 petitioner owed Rs.3,00,000/- to him and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P4, cheque dated 31.12.2004. Its dishonour for insufficiency of funds is proved by Ext.P6. Service of statutory notice on the petitioner is proved by Ext.P7 to P9. Petitioner is the divorced wife of respondent No.1. According to respondent No.1 when they jointly moved for divorce liabilities between them were settled and for the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- due to him petitioner issued the cheque. P.W.1, Power of Attorney Holder has given evidence on behalf of respondent No.1. Exhibit P5 is the receipt issued by petitioner. Exhibit P2 is photocopy of joint petition and Ext.P3 is the judgment thereon. Exhibits P2 and P3 specifically refer to the financial liability of parties being settled and petitioner issuing Ext.P4, cheque dated 31.12.2004 for payment of Rs.3,00,000/- CRL. R.P. No.2527 of 2009 -: 2 :- due to respondent No.1. Exhibit P3 shows that accepting the joint petition divorce was granted. Petitioner was examined as D.W.1 and stated that cheque was given as security so that in future respondent No.1 would not file any case against her. Courts below did not accept that contention and found her guilty. That finding is under challenge in this revision. 3. Divorce as per Ext.P3 is not disputed by petitioner. Exhibits P2 and P3 show that settlement covered financial liability of petitioner towards respondent No.1 and it is towards payment of that amount that petitioner issued the cheque. Petitioner is not disputing the settlement or issue of the cheque. Her contention is only that it was to ward off future litigation from respondent No.1 that she issued the cheque. That contention of petitioner did not sound good in view of Exts.P2 and P3. It is also relevant to note that petitioner did not reply to the notice served on her. In these circumstances courts below rightly found in favour of due execution of the cheque for discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. There is little reason to interfere with that finding. 4. In modification of the substantive sentence appellate court sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court. Appellate court confirmed the direction for payment of compensation with the default sentence which considering the amount involved and the object of legislation, required no interference at the CRL. R.P. No.2527 of 2009 -: 3 :- instance of petitioner. 5. Counsel for petitioner requested six months’ time to deposit the compensation. Counsel submits that petitioner is a lady and she is unable to raise the amount immediately. Counsel also requested that petitioner may be permitted to pay the compensation directly to respondent No.1. Considering the submission made by counsel and other circumstances I am inclined to grant time till 5.1.2010 to deposit the compensation in the trial court. Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 5.1.2010 to deposit the composition in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court. It is made clear that it shall be sufficient compliance with the condition for deposit of compensation if petitioner paid the compensation to respondent No.1 through her counsel in the trial court and respondent No.1 filed a statement in the trial court through his counsel acknowledging receipt of the compensation within the said period. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 7.1.2010 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant against petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv