IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2637 OF 2009() -------------------------------------------- CRA.99/2006 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THRISSUR ST.2820/2003 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, VADAKKANCHERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S):/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------ RAVINDRAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, JENLLARI HOUSE THANDAPARAMBU, KONCHERY ROAD, KILLANNUR VILLAGE, MULANKUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------- 1. RAJENDRA MOHAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, KOZHITHARAMEL HOUSE, PARLIKKAD, THALAPPALLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2637 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th 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 in this revision which is not prejudicial to him. Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. 2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Sessions Judge (Fast Track-I), Thrissur in Crl. Appeal No.99 of 2006 confirming conviction and sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.25,000/- from him and executed Ext.P1, promissory note. For repayment of that amount he also issued Ext.P2, cheque dated 5.3.2003 which is dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Exts.P3 and P4. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is not disputed and proved by Exts.P5 to P7. Exhibit P8 is the reply. Contention taken up by petitioner in the trial court as well in paragraph 8 of the reply notice is that he had borrowed only Rs.5,000/- from respondent No.1 and at that time given a signed blank cheque as security which has been misused. Petitioner did not adduce evidence or bring out circumstances to prove or probabilise that contention. Exhibit P2, CRL. R.P. No.2637 of 2009 -: 2 :- cheque is signed by the petitioner and drawn on the account maintained by him. He does not dispute that he had financial transaction with respondent No.1 and it was in that connection that Ext.P2, cheque was issued. His contention that he had borrowed only Rs.5,000/- is not proved or probabilised. In the above circumstances courts below found in favour of due execution of the cheque. There is no reason to differ. 3. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and directed payment of Rs.25,000/- as compensation. In default of payment, sentence of one month’s simple imprisonment also was provided. Appellate court did not interfere with the substantive sentence, direction for payment of compensation and default sentence. 4. It is contended that sentence imposed is excessive. Learned counsel requested three months’ time to deposit compensation. Counsel submits that on account of financial difficulties petitioner is unable to raise the amount immediately. Considering the nature of offence I am satisfied that simple imprisonment till rising of the court is sufficient in the ends of justice. I find no reason to interfere with the direction for payment of compensation or default CRL. R.P. No.2637 of 2009 -: 3 :- sentence at the instance of petitioner. Considering the financial difficulties petitioner is granted time till 13.11.2009 to deposit compensation. Since, substantive sentence is being modified and considering the amount involved I direct that in case of non-payment petitioner has to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Resultantly this revision petition is allowed in part to the following extent: (i) Substantive sentence awarded to petitioner is modified as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. (ii) Petitioner is granted time till 13.11.2009 to deposit compensation in the trial court as ordered by that court failing which petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. (iii) It is made clear that it shall be sufficient compliance with the direction for deposit of compensation if petitioner paid the 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 CRL. R.P. No.2637 of 2009 -: 4 :- counsel acknowledging receipt of the compensation within the said period. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 16.11.2009 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any, against petitioner will remain in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv