IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2402 OF 2009() ---------------------------------------------- CRA.477/2008 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KOTTAYAM ST.603/2006 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S) - APPELLANT - ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------ M.THASAMMAL, AGED 64 YEARS, W/O.VINISTOR, KOVILVILAKATH HOUSE, KOTTANGAL AREA, KOTTANGAL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB RESPONDENT(S) - RESPONDENTS - COMPLAINANT & STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ACHAMMA DEVASIA, AGED 51 YEARS, W/O.DEVASIA, VELIYAMPARATH HOUSE, THEKKUMMOODU BHAGOM, CHERUVATH AREA, CHERUVATH VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S. HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO. 2402 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Concurrent finding entered by the courts below against petitioner as regards due execution of a cheque for discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability is attempted to be unsettled in this revision. 2. Petitioner faced trial in the court of learned judicial first class Magistrate-II, Kanjirappally in S.T. No.603 of 2006 on a complaint preferred by respondent No.1. She alleged that petitioner’s son owed Rs.1,00,000/- to her and for discharge of that liability he issued a cheque which was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Respondent No.1 thereon filed S.T. No.319 of 2004 against son of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While that case was pending petitioner approached respondent No.1 for a settlement. Accordingly the matter was settled on 24.11.2005. Pursuant to that settlement petitioner paid Rs.33,000/- to respondent No.1 and agreed to pay the balance sum of Rs.67,000/- on 30.6.2006. For repayment of that amount petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 30.6.2006. That cheque also was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds based on which the present complaint was filed. CRL. R.P.No.2402 of 2009 -: 2 :- Dishonour of the cheque is proved by Exts.P3 and P4. Respondent No.1 issued notice to the petitioner intimating dishonour and demanding payment. Issue of notice is proved by Exts.P5 and P6. Exhibit P7 shows that in spite of intimation given to petitioner the registered notice was returned unclaimed. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as P.W.1. She produced Ext.P2 to show the settlement between herself and petitioner on 24.11.2005 pursuant to which Ext.P1, cheque was issued. According to the petitioner she had no transaction with respondent No.1 and signed blank cheque was given as security in the transaction respondent No.1 had with the son of petitioner. Courts below found in favour of due execution of the cheque as stated by respondent No.1. Learned counsel contended that conviction of petitioner is not legal or proper. 3. It is not disputed that against the son of petitioner, respondent No.1 filed S.T. No.319 of 2004. Settlement involving petitioner is proved by the evidence of respondent No.1 and Ext.P2 which is not challenged. It is in consideration of the settlement of dispute involving respondent No.1 and petitioner's son in S.T. No.319 of 2004 and its withdrawal that petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque. She has taken up the liability of her son. Therefore it is idle to contend CRL. R.P.No.2402 of 2009 -: 3 :- that cheque is not supported by consideration. Execution of cheque is proved by the evidence of respondent No1. Petitioner has not rebutted the presumption under Sec.139 of the Act. Hence conviction of petitioner did not require interference. 4. Substantive sentence awarded by the learned magistrate was modified by the appellate court as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. Direction for payment of compensation of Rs.67,000/- and the default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month were confirmed. There is no reason to interfere with the substantive sentence as modified and the direction for payment of compensation or the default sentence as confirmed by the appellate court at the instance of petitioner. 5. Learned counsel requested that on account of financial difficulties petitioner is unable to raise the amount immediately and that petitioner may be granted six months’ time to deposit compensation. Counsel further requested that petitioner may be permitted to pay compensation directly to respondent No.1. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined to grant time till 30.12.2009 to deposit/pay compensation. Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is CRL. R.P.No.2402 of 2009 -: 4 :- granted time till 30.12.2009 to deposit the compensation in the trial court as ordered by the courts below. It is made clear that it shall be sufficient compliance of the direction for deposit of compensation if petitioner paid compensation to respondent No.1 through her counsel in the trial court and respondent No.1 filed a statement in the trial court through her counsel acknowledging receipt of the compensation within the said period. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31.12.2009 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any, against petitioner will remain in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv