IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 711 of 2000(C) ------------------------------ CRA.36/1996 of SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKOE CC.323/1994 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PERAMBRA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: --------------------------- PALAYULLATHIL MUSTAFA, S/O. ALI, KOKKALLOOR P.O., BALUSSERI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. PALANCHERRY GOVINDAN NAIR, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, P.O. ERAMANGALAM, KARAKKALLOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADDL. 3. PARVATHY AMMA, W/O. LATE GOVINDAN NAIR, RESIDING AT ATHIKOTTU HOUSE, ERAMANGALAM P.O., KOKKALLOOR P.O., BALUSSERI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ADDL. 4. REENA, D/O. LATE GOVINDAN NAIR, RESIDING AT ATHIKOTTU HOUSE, ERAMANGALAM P.O., KOKKALLOOR P.O., BALUSSERI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ADDL. 5. RADHAKRISHNAN, W/O. LATE GOVINDAN NAIR, RESIDING AT ATHIKOTTU HOUSE, ERAMANGALAM P.O., KOKKALLOOR P.O., BALUSSERI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. CRL.RP: 711/2000 (ADDL. R3 TO R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.4.3.08 IN CRL.MA. 2118/08) BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. C.M. NAZAR, FOR R2 ADV. SRI.N.JAMES KOSHY SRI.T.SANJAY SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI FOR R.3,4,5 SMT.C.G.PREETHA FOR R.3,4,5 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.711 OF 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of April 2008 ORDER Petitioner was found concurrently guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the trial court as well as the appellate court. The trial court had sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for nine months. However, in appeal the learned Sessions Judge modified and reduced the sentence to three months' simple imprisonment. The order of the learned Sessions Judge is under challenge in this revision petition. 2. The case of the complainant before the trial court was that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/- from him promising to repay the same within three months. The accused did not discharge the liability as promised. However, when the demand for payment was made, the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque which on presentation was dishonoured. Though Ext.P3 Crl.R.P.No.711 OF 2000 :: 2 :: demand notice was issued by the complainant the liability was not discharged by the accused. Hence the complaint. 3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and the Manager of the Bank was examined as PW2. Exts.P1 to P7 were marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.D1 was produced on the side of the defence. 4. The defence set up by the accused before the trial court was that his initials were not 'M.K.' as indicated in the cause title, but it was 'P'. The above contention was repelled by the learned Magistrate. Significantly the accused did not have a case that he had not issued Ext.P1 cheque to the complainant. Similarly, the accused did not also have a case that he did not maintain the account in question from which Ext.P1 cheque was issued. More importantly, petitioner was described as 'Palayullathil Musthafa'. Therefore, obviously his “initial” shown in the cause title could have been an inadvertent mistake committed by the complainant. The said mistake was of no Crl.R.P.No.711 OF 2000 :: 3 :: significant at all as rightly held by the trial court as well as the appellate court. As mentioned earlier, the accused had admitted issuance of the cheque to the complainant. The accused did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his contentions. He had also not sent any reply to Ext.P3 demand notice issued by the complainant after dishonour of the cheque. The courts below had elaborately considered the oral and documentary evidence on record and held that the complainant had satisfactorily proved his case. 5. I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by the courts below. There is no merit in the revision petition. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused is prepared to discharge the liability, if some reasonable time is granted. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that an opportunity can be granted to the petitioner. If Crl.R.P.No.711 OF 2000 :: 4 :: the petitioner appears before the court below on August 5, 2008 and remits a sum of Rs.45,000/- as compensation to be paid to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the appellate court shall stand set aside. In lieu of that he shall suffer imprisonment till the rising of the court on that day in addition to the payment of the compensation as indicated above. On failure of the petitioner to appear and remit the above sum of compensation, the order passed by the Sessions Court shall remain in force. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes