IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2009 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1895 of 2009() ------------------------------ AGAINST JUDGMENT DTD 31.3.2009 IN CRA.440/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR ST.2220/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRTE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------ M.T. RAVI, S/O.THAMI, AGED 53 YEARS, MUDAPALAYI HOUSE, MUNICIPAL QUARTERS NO.3, PARAVATTANI, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.C.A.CHACKO MS.C.M.CHARISMA MR.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.K. JANARDHANAN, S/O.K.R. KUNJUNNY, KARIPPAL HOUSE, CHELAKKOTTUKKARA, THRISSUR. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. C.S. HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P.NO. 1895 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2009 ORDER Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to make which is not prejudicial to him. 2. In this revision at the instance of the accused, challenge is to the concurrent finding entered by the courts below as to the due execution of a cheque allegedly issued for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. Respondent No.1 preferred a complaint alleging that petitioner borrowed Rs.40,000/- from him and for re-payment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 17.2.2003 for the said amount. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Dishonour of the cheque for the said reason is proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Issue and service of statutory notice on the petitioner are proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Respondent N0.1 gave evidence as PW1 regarding the alleged transaction and execution of cheque. According to the petitioner, he had given a cheque as security Crl.R.P.No.1895/09 2 when one Manoj obtained a loan from Eco-Mark Finance Company. Petitioner was a guarantor for that transaction. That cheque was misused. 3. It is contended in this revision that due execution of cheque is not proved. As to the borrowal and the alleged execution of the cheque, respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1. Petitioner merely suggested to respondent No.1 that he had not borrowed any amount from respondent No.1 and instead the cheque was given to Eco-Mark Finance Company. Respondent No.1 (PW1) denied that suggestion. Petitioner did not adduce any evidence or bring out circumstances which proved or probabilised that contention. He did not also bring out any circumstance to discredit the version of respondent No.1. Courts below observed that notwithstanding lengthy cross examination of respondent No.1, nothing could be brought out to disbelieve him. Added to that, is the failure of petitioner to reply to the statutory notice served on him on behalf of respondent No.1. Courts below in these circumstances found in favour of due execution of the cheque. Going through the judgments under challenge and on hearing the submission of learned counsel I do not find any illegality, Crl.R.P.No.1895/09 3 irregularity or impropriety in the finding of the courts below requiring interference in revision. 4. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo Simple Imprisonment till rising of the court and directed payment of compensation of Rs.45,000/- with default sentence of three months. In appeal the substantive sentence was confirmed. Compensation payable was modified as Rs.40,000/- and in default sentence of one month was provided. I do not find reason to interfere with the sentence or direction for payment of compensation as modified by the appellate court. 5. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner is in difficult situation and is unable to raise the money immediately. He requested three months' time to deposit compensation. 6. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel and the amount involved I am inclined to grant three months' time to the petitioner to deposit compensation as ordered by the appellate court. Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted three months' time to deposit Crl.R.P.No.1895/09 4 compensation in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court failing which, he shall undergo imprisonment as directed by the appellate court. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 21.9.2009 to receive the sentence. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE Acd