IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2655 OF 2009() ------------------------------------------------- CRA.647/2007 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC), PALAKKAD ST.785/1997 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PATTAMBI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): /APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.MANI, KALATHIL PARAMBIL HOUSE,KOTTARAM POST, VALANCHERRY,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR,S/O.AMMALU APPISSI, KARUTHEDATHU,NATHIYAMKKODU DESOM, NAGALASSERI AMSOM,OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S. HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2655 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th 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 in the revision which is not prejudicial to him. Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.1. 2. Concurrent finding entered by the courts below regarding the due execution of a cheque is under challenge in this revision. According to respondent No.2, petitioner borrowed Rs.20,000/- from him and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 20.6.1996. Dishonour of that cheque for insufficiency of funds is proved Exts.P2, P3 and P6. Service of statutory notice on the petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 and P5. Though respondent No.2 has not produced the acknowledgment card there is no contention for petitioner before me that he was not served with the statutory notice. Respondent No.2 gave evidence as P.W1 and stated that petitioner borrowed Rs.20,000/- from him and issued the cheque for repayment of that amount. According to petitioner, he had no transaction with respondent No.2 and instead, borrowed money from another person to whom signed blank cheque was given as security and that cheque has CRL. R.P. No.2655 of 2009 -: 2 :- been misused. Petitioner did not adduce evidence or bring out circumstances to prove or probabilise that contention. Nor did he reply to the statutory notice served on him. Courts below found no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W1 regarding due execution of the cheque. In these circumstances I do not find reason to interfere with the concurrent finding entered by the courts below regarding due execution of the cheque. Petitioner failed to rebut the presumption under Sec.139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. Learned magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. He was directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation. In default of payment simple imprisonment for one month was also provided. Appellate court modified the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court but confirmed the direction for payment of compensation and the default sentence. I do not find reason to interfere with the sentence as modified by the appellate court, direction for payment of compensation or the default sentence at the instance of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted one month’s time to deposit the compensation. It is stated that on account of financial difficulties petitioner is not able to raise the CRL. R.P. No.2655 of 2009 -: 3 :- amount immediately. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined to grant time as requested by counsel. Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted one month’s time from this day to deposit/pay compensation in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court. It is made clear that it shall be sufficient compliance with the direction for payment of compensation if petitioner paid the compensation to respondent No.2 through his counsel in the trial court and respondent No.2 filed a statement in the trial court through his counsel acknowledging receipt of compensation within the said period. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 19.9.2009 to receive the sentence. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv