IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2009 / 6TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2755 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.773/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-2), THRISSUR ST.89/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- P.A.KABEER, S/O.ABOOBACKER, PALLIVATHUKAL HOUSE, CHERPU WEST, P.O.CHERPU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE OF KERALA: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. HARISH KUMAR, S/O.KARAPPAN, KEESHUVTTIL HOUSE, P.O.KADUPASSERY, KADUPASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR : SRI C S HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2755 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 28th day of August 2009 ORDER This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, (ADHOC) Fast Track No-2, Thrissur in criminal appeal No.773 of 2007 confirming conviction and sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to respondent No.1, petitioner owed Rs.50000/- to him and for discharge of that liability issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 05-10-2004. Dishonour of that cheque for insufficiency of funds is proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Issue and service of statutory notice on petitioner are proved by Exts.P5 to P7. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and stated to his case. Case of petitioner is that he had given signed blank cheque to M/s.Fashion Gifts and Finance as security for a kuri transaction which DW1 had with that finance company. DW1 gave evidence in that line. DW1 stated that petitioner was his guaranteer in the kuri transaction. DW2 is the proprietor of M/s. Fashion Gifts and Finance. He denied that Ext.P1 was taken as security from petitioner or DW1. Instead, he obtained the salary certificate of petitioner as security for the kuri transaction. Courts below were not inclined to act upon the evidence of DW1 and found in favour of due execution of the cheque. It is contended by learned Crl.R.P.No.2755 of 2009 2 counsel that concurrent finding regarding due execution of the cheque is not correct. 2. Question is whether the explanation stated through DW1 can be accepted. DW2 has not supported the petitioner to the extent it concerned receiving Ext.P1 as security. DW1 stated that the cheque given to DW2 was drawn on Cherpu Co-operative Bank and was blue in colour but, Ext.P1 is drawn on the Thrissur Co-operative Bank and is green in colour. To respondent No.1 it was suggested on behalf of petitioner that the former was an employee of Fashion Gifts and Finance. He denied that suggestion. There is no evidence to show that respondent No.1 was in any way connected with the concern of DW2 so that, there was any possibility of the cheque if at all given to DW2 reaching respondent No.1. Petitioner has not also replied to the statutory notice served on him. Nothing was brought out to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.1. It is in the above circumstances that courts below did not place reliance on the evidence of DW1. Courts below considered the evidence and found that due execution of the cheque is proved. That finding is not vitiated by an illegality, irregularity or impropriety calling for interference. 3. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court. There is also a direction for payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to respondent No.1 and Crl.R.P.No.2755 of 2009 3 default sentence of forty five days is also provided. Having regard to the nature of offence and the amount involved there is no reason to interfere with the sentence, direction for payment of compensation or the default sentence. 4. Learned counsel has requested that petitioner may be granted four months' time to deposit compensation. It is stated that on account of financial difficulties petitioner is not able to raise the amount immediately. Having regard to the circumstances stated and the amount involved I am inclined to grant time till 31-12-2009 to deposit compensation. Resultantly this revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 31-12-2009 to deposit compensation in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 02-01-2010 to receive the sentence. Execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance till 02-01-2010. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/