IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 1625 OF 2009() ------------------------------------------------- CRA.780/2005 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, TRIVANDRUM ST.2581/2004 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, ATTINGAL .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S):/APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------------------------- K.G.HARIKUMAR, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, VINAYA VILASOM, PADINJATTUMUKKU, CHITTATTUMUKKU P.O., KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MANIKANTAN NAIR, S/O.THANKAPPAN PILLAI, OMANA BHAVAN, THEEPUKAL, KOLLYAKODU VILLAGE, NEDUMANGADU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.1625 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Public Prosecutor takes notice or R2. Notice to R1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in this revision which is not prejudicial to respondent No.1 2. Respondent No.1 filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). His case is that liability petitioner availed a loan of Rs.1,60,000/- and for the discharge of that issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 2.8.2004. Dishonour of that cheque for insufficiency of funds is proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Respondent No.1 issued notice to the petitioner on 16.9.2004 intimating dishonour and demanding payment. Respondent No.1 stated that petitioner got intimation about the notice on 20.9.2004 but refused to claim it. Exhibit P6 is the unserved postal article. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as P.W1 and testified to his case. Contention raised by the petitioner is that his mother had availed a loan of Rs.10,000/- from respondent No.1 and given his signed blank cheque as security. But to substantiate that contention, petitioner did not adduce any evidence. Suggestion to that effect was denied by respondent No.1. CRL. R.P. No.1625 of 2009 -: 2 :- That Ext.P1 contained signature of petitioner is admitted and proved. In the facts and circumstances courts below found in favour of due execution of the cheque. Petitioner failed to rebut the presumption under Sec.139 of the Act. These findings are entered on a proper appreciation of the evidence let in by respondent No.1 and there is no reason to interfere. 3. Exhibits P4 and P5 show that notice of dishonour was issued to the petitioner. Going by Ext.P6 it is seen that it was returned unclaimed. There is no substantial contention raised as to service. Courts below considered these aspects and found in favour of deemed service of notice. There is little reason to interfere with conviction. 4. Learned magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one month while directing payment of compensation of Rs.1,60,000/-. Appellate court retained that direction while modifying the substantive sentence to simple imprisonment till the rising of court. There is no reason to interfere with the sentence modified by the appellate court. 5. At this stage learned counsel for petitioner requested three months’ time to deposit the compensation in the trial court. CRL. R.P. No.1625 of 2009 -: 3 :- Considering the amount involved and object of legislation I am inclined to allow the request made by the petitioner. Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted three months’ time from this day to deposit the compensation in the trial court. It is made clear that it shall be sufficient compliance of the direction for deposit of the amount if petitioner paid the compensation to respondent No.1 through his counsel in the trial court and respondent No.1 filed a statement in the trial court through his counsel acknowledging receipt of the compensation within the said period two months. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 28.8.2009 to receive the sentence. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv