IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2009 / 23RD ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2271 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.252/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ADHOC COURT NO.1, PALAKKAD ST.2665/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVN.PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------ K.MANIKANDAN,S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, RED SEA FABRICATION WORKS,MILMA ROAD, KALLEPULLY P.O.,PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------- 1. M/S.SREELAKSHMI KURIES AND LOANS (P) LTD PALAKKAD,REP.BY ITS MANAGER-M.HARIDASAN. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S.HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2271 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2009. ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in this revision which is not prejudicial to it. Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. 2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc-I, Palakkad in Crl.Appeal No.252 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 on whose complaint the proceeding was initiated, petitioner subscribed to a kuri started by it, prized it for Rs.50,000/- on 7.5.1999 and received the amount but defaulted payment of future instalments. Rs.86,000/- was due from the petitioner. He issued Ext.P3, cheque dated 7.1.2003 for discharge of that liability. That cheque was dishonourd for insufficiency of funds as proved by Exts.P4 and P5. Statutory notice was issued to the petitioner. According to respondent No.1, that notice was returned unclaimed inspite of intimation given to the petitioner. Exts.P6 to P8 are produced to prove the same. Petitioner contended that signed blank cheque was given to respondent No.1 in connection with an earlier kuri transaction. He contended that he was not served with statutory the notice. Petitioner produced Ext.D1, his ration card Crl.R.P.No.2271/2009 2 to show that his address is not as given in Ext.P6. 3. So far as execution of cheque is concerned, it is not disputed that Ext.P3 is signed by the petitioner and is drawn on his account. Respondent No.1 produced Exts.P2 and P9 to show the liability of petitioner. Nothing is brought out to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 regarding the transaction leading to the execution of cheque. 4. So far as the contention regarding non-service of notice is concerned Ext.D1, ration card of the petitioner is for the years 2002-2006. Respondent No.1 has issued notice to the petitioner in the address supplied to it by the petitioner as revealed from Exts.P2 and P9. There is no evidence to show that the change of address if any, was intimated to respondent No.1. Responsibility of respondent No.1 is to issue notice in the last known address of petitioner. Moreover, endorsement on Ext.P8 that intimation was given stares at the petitioner. Courts below have found in favour of deemed service on petitioner. There is no reason to interfere with that finding. Conviction of petitioner therefore, does not require interference. 5. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He was directed to pay compensation of Rs.86,000/- to respondent No.1. Default sentence of imprisonment for three months was also provided. Appellate court while confirming the direction for payment of compensation and default sentence, modified the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. Having regard to the nature of offence and the object of legislation there is little reason to interfere Crl.R.P.No.2271/2009 3 with the sentence as modified by the appellate court or the direction for payment of compensation and the default sentence. 6. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted six months' time to deposit compensation. According to the learned counsel, petitioner is undergoing treatment and is unable to raise the amount immediately. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel, I am inclined to grant time till 30.12.2009 to the petitioner to deposit compensation. Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 30.12.2009 to deposit compensation in the trial court as ordered by the courts below. It is made clear that it will 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 above said period. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31.12.2009 to receive the sentence. Execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance till 31.12.2009. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. Crl.R.P.No.2271/2009 4 cks