IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2250 OF 2009() ------------------------------------------------ CRA.758/2006 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR ST.224/2003 OF JUDL. MAGISTRTE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------- BABU, S/O.ARABINDAKSHAN, PROPRIETOR, ARABIND POLYMERS, MANAMPIL HOUSE, NELLESWARA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S.WESTERN MARKETING ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MOHANDAS, S/O.ACHUTHAN NAIR, MANGATTU HOUSE, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2250 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of July, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass which is not prejudicial to it. Public Prosecutor took notice for respondent No.2. 2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur in Crl. Appeal No.758 of 2006 confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to respondent No.1 petitioner had business transaction with it and in partial discharge of the total liability to the tune of Rs.3,60,021/- petitioner issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 30.5.2001 for Rs.50,000/-. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Respondent No.1 issued statutory notice to the petitioner which was returned unclaimed. Issue and return of notice as aforesaid are proved by Exts.P4 and P5. P.W1, Managing Partner of respondent No.1 authorised by Ext.P6, copy of Power of Attorney gave evidence regarding the transaction. According to the petitioner, no amount was due to respondent No.1 and instead the signed blank cheque given as security was misused. Petitioner did CRL. R.P. No.2250 of 2009 -: 2 :- not adduce evidence to prove or probabilise that contention. Courts below considered the evidence and found in favour of due execution of the cheque. That finding is under challenge. But no justifiable reason is shown to interfere with that finding. Evidence regarding due execution of the cheque is given by P.W.1. There is no reason or circumstance to think that any signed blank cheque was given. There is no reason to disbelieve P.W.1. 3. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court and directed payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to Respondent No.1. Default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months also was provided. Appellate court confirmed the substantive sentence, direction for payment of compensation but modified the default sentence as simple imprisonment for one month. Considering the nature of the offence I find no reason to interfere with the sentence, direction for payment or the default sentence as modified by the appellate court at the instance of petitioner. 4. Counsel for petitioner requested six months’ time to deposit composition in the trial court. Counsel submits that petitioner is unable to raise the amount immediately due to financial difficulty. CRL. R.P. No.2250 of 2009 -: 3 :- Having regard to the circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined to grant time till 30.12.2009 to deposit the composition. Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 30.12.2009 to deposit composition. It is made clear that it shall be sufficient compliance of the direction for payment 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 its counsel acknowledging receipt of 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 against petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv