IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2179 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.677/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ADHOC COURT -I, PALAKKAD CC.22/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- C.M.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O.KUNJAMRAVUTHAR, AGED 41 YEARS, NOMBULLYPURA, CHALIYAR ROAD, MUNDUR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (BALARAMAPURAM) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------------------ 1. N.MURUGAN, S/O.LATE NADARAJATHARAKAN, AGED 45 YEARS, NATARAJA BHAVAN, CHINMAYA NAGAR, PALLIPURAM PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S.HRITHWIK FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2179 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2009. ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in the revision and which is not prejudicial to him. Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. 2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc Court-I, Palakkad in Crl.Appeal No.677 of 2007 confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from him and for discharge of that liability issued cheque (Ext.P1) dated 3.11.2006. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Respondent No.1 issued statutory notice to the petitioner intimating dishonour and demanding payment of the amount. Issue and service of notice are proved by Ext.P4 series. Petitioner sent Ext.P5, reply. Finding of the courts below regarding cause of dishonour and service of statutory notice are not challenged. Challenge is regarding the finding as to execution of the cheque. 3. Contention raised by the petitioner is that he had borrowed only Rs.50,000/- from respondent No.1 and had agreed to repay the same in daily instalments. He paid the amount upto the 74th instalment but could not pay the Crl.R.P.No.2179/2009 2 balance amount. Later he paid the balance amount but respondent No.1 insisted that he must pay Rs.25,000/- by way of interest. That, he could not oblige. Signed blank cheque given at the time of transaction was misused. Respondent No.1 denied that suggestion. He claimed that petitioner borrowed Rupees one lakh and issued the cheque for repayment of that amount. Further contention of respondent No.1 is that petitioner had not repaid any amount. Regarding the circumstances pleaded by petitioner, what is available is only the reply (Ext.P5) sent by him and suggestion put to respondent No.1 when the latter was in the box which he denied. It is admitted that petitioner had transaction with respondent No.1 and that it was in connection with that transaction that petitioner gave the cheque to respondent No.1. He was not able to prove or probabilise the plea raised by him. Courts below after appreciation of evidence correctly found that petitioner issued the cheque for discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. I do not find reason to interfere with that finding. 4. Learned magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He was directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to respondent No.1 and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Appellate court while retaining the direction for payment of compensation and default sentence modified the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. I do not find reason to interfere with the sentence as modified by the appellate court or the direction for payment of compensation and the default sentence as confirmed by that court. Crl.R.P.No.2179/2009 3 5. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted six months’ time to deposit the compensation. He stated that petitioner is unable to raise the amount immediately. Having regard to the circumstances stated by learned counsel and considering the amount involved, I am inclined to grant four months' time to the petitioner to pay/deposit compensation. Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted four months’ time from today to deposit compensation in the trial court. It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance of the direction for deposit of compensation 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 compensation within the said period of four months. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 9.11.2009 to receive the sentence. Execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance till 9.11.2009. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks