IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2009 / 30TH SRAVANA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2724 OF 2009() ---------------------------------------------- CRA.391/2008 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KOTTAYAM CC.7/2005 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, ETTUMANUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------------------- LEELAMMA THOMAS, W/O.ABEY, ARAVINDASSERIL HOUSE, OLASSA P.O., AYMANAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SREENIVASAN K.V., KUZHIPARAMBIL, ETTUMANOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2724 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st day of August, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass which is not prejudicial to him. Public Prosecutor took notice for respondent No.1. 2. Petitioner is challenging concurrent finding entered by the courts below as to the due execution of a cheque for discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. She faced trial in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ettumanoor for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to respondent No.2, petitioner issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 3.11.2004 for discharge of the liability to the tune of Rs.90,000/-. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Respondent No.2 gave evidence as P.W.1 and stated to his case. According to the petitioner, she had no transaction with respondent No.2 nor issued any cheque to him. Instead, one Ramesh forcibly took a cheque from her bag on 14.8.20004. She submitted that she has already filed C.C.No.699 of 2006 against the said Ramesh. Petitioner did not adduce any evidence in that line. Courts below did not accept that contention and found her guilty. In this revision it is CRL. R.P.No.2724 of 2009 -: 2 :- contended that finding of the courts below regarding execution of the cheque is not correct. 3. It is true that petitioner has stated how else Ext.P1 cheque happened to be in the custody of respondent No.2 She has not adduced evidence or brought out circumstances to prove or probabilise her case. Ramesh who is stated to have taken the cheque forcibly from her bag is not examined. Petitioner has also not produced any document too show that she has filed any complaint against Ramesh. Courts below found that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.2 On evidence it was found that due execution of the cheque is proved. I find no reason to interfere with the finding of the courts below or conviction of petitioner. 4. While retaining direction for payment of compensation of Rs.90,000/- and default sentence to undergo imprisonment for two months, appellate court modified substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. Having regard to the nature of offence I find no reason to interfere with the sentence as modified by the appellate court and direction for payment of compensation and default sentence as confirmed by the appellate court. 5. Learned counsel requested eight months’ time to deposit compensation. It is stated that on account of financial difficulties CRL. R.P.No.2724 of 2009 -: 3 :- petitioner is unable to raise the amount immediately. It is also submitted that petitioner is involved in yet another case where also she is directed to deposit compensation. Further request is that petitioner may be permitted to pay the compensation directly to respondent No.2. Having regard to the circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined to grant time till 28.01.2010 to deposit compensation. Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 28.01.2010 to deposit compensation in the trial court. 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.2 through her counsel in the trial court and respondent No.2 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 29.01.2009 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any against petitioner will remain in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv