IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2009 / 1ST ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1909 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.122/2006 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CC.1540/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT,CHALAKUDY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- THILAKAN,S/O.CHAKKAPPAN,AGED 38 YEARS, NARATTIL HOUSE,ANURULI DEOSM, PULLUR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. PRASAD,S/O.SARADAMMA,CHULLIPPARAMBIL HOUE,PUTHANCHIRA VILLAGE,VADAKKUMURI, THRISSUR.1~ 2. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY 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 22/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1909 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June, 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 him. Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. 2. Petitioner faced trial in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chalakudy in C.C.No.1540 of 2002 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”) on a complaint preferred by respondent No.1. According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.75,000/- from him and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 9.7.2002. That cheque was dishonourd for insufficiency of funds as proved by Exts.P2 and P3. On getting dishonour information respondent No.1 served statutory notice on petitioner on 1.10.2002 as proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Ext.P7 is the reply. Petitioner did not pay the amount and hence the complaint. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and stated that petitioner borrowed the amount from him and for repayment of that amount issued the cheque. According to the petitioner, there was no transaction with respondent No.1. He had given the cheque to DW1, his relative. DW1 handed over the cheque to respondent No.1. DW1 supported the petitioner. Courts below were not impressed by the evidence of DW1, found in Crl.R.P.No.1909/2009 2 favour of due execution of the cheque and held the petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the Act. That finding is under challenge in this revision. 3. It is true that on getting dishonour intimation and demand for payment petitioner sent Ext.P7, reply contending that he had no transaction with respondent No.1 and instead had handed over the cheque to DW1. DW1 also stated so. It is not disputed that DW1 is a close relative of petitioner. If that be so merely on the evidence of DW1 version of respondent No.1 cannot be disbelieved. Courts below have considered and assessed the evidence and found that there is no reason to disbelieve respondent No.1. There is no reason to interfere in revision as the finding of the courts below are not vitiated by any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. 4. Learned magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court. Petitioner was directed to pay compensation of Rs.80,000/- to respondent No.1 and in default of payment, undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Appellate court confirmed the substantive sentence but modified compensation payable as Rs.75,000/- and default sentence as simple imprisonment for one month. There is little reason to interfere with the substantive sentence, compensation and default sentence ordered by the appellate court. 5. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted four months' time to deposit compensation in the trial court. According to learned counsel, petitioner is in financial difficulties and is unable to raise Rs.75,000/- immediately. Considering the amount involved and circumstances stated by Crl.R.P.No.1909/2009 3 learned counsel, I am inclined to grant three months' time to the petitioner to deposit compensation in the trial court. Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted three months' time from today to deposit the compensation in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court failing which he shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the appellate court. It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance with 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 his counsel acknowledging receipt of compensation within the said period of three months. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 24.9.2009 to receive the sentence. Crl.M.A.No.5865 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks