IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 1657 OF 2009() ----------------------------------------------- CRA.240/2007 OF SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA ST.704/2006 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT- II,PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLAN/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------ P.C.JACOB, PUTHEN ELAMPURAYIDATHIL VEEDU KURIYANOOR PO, KOZHENCHERRY, PROPRIETOR FRIENDS CHITS & FINANCE, PULLAD, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.E.M.MURUGAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MARY MATHEW, MELADATH HOUSE, PULLADU PO, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.1657 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009 O R D E R -------------- 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 pass in the revision which is not prejudicial to respondent No.1. 2. Respondent No.1 came to the court with the case that petitioner issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 20.3.2006 for Rs.25,000/- for discharge of a legally enforceable liability/debt due to her, but the cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. She issued statutory notice to the petitioner on 7.4.2006 intimating dishonour and demanding payment. Notice was served on the petitioner on 8.6.2006 but petitioner did not pay the amount. Hence the complaint. 3. Dishonour of the cheque for the reason above stated is proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Issue and service of notice are proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as P.W.1 and testified to her case. Case of the petitioner is that Ext.P1, cheque was stolen by one Gopinathan Nair from his shop. But petitioner did not substantiate that contention and did not even reply to the statutory notice served on him. Courts below were not impressed by the contention raised by the petitioner and accepted the evidence let in by CRL. R.P. No.1657 of 2009 -: 2 :- P.W.1 as regards the transaction and the due execution of the cheque. That, Ext.P1 contained the signature of the petitioner is admitted. It is also not disputed that the cheque is drawn on the account maintained by the petitioner. Respondent No.1 has produced the instrument which created the liability on the petitioner, the drawer, from her possession. There is no evidence or circumstance to hold that respondent No.1 got the cheque stealthily as contended by the petitioner. It is not shown that petitioner had given Ext.P1 to Gopinathan Nair and from him, respondent No.1 got it. Nothing is brought out to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.1. Failure of the petitioner to reply to the statutory notice served on him is also material and relevant. It is in these circumstances that the courts below accepted the case of respondent No.1 and found in favour of due execution of the cheque. Respondent No.1 is also entitled to rely on the presumption under Sec.139 of the Act. Petitioner was not successful in rebutting that presumption. There is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the findings entered by the courts below. There is therefore no scope or reason to interfere with the conviction of the petitioner. 4. Learned magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Petitioner was directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/-. Default sentence was also provided. In appeal the substantive sentence was modified to simple imprisonment CRL. R.P. No.1657 of 2009 -: 3 :- till rising of the court. Direction for payment of compensation was confirmed. Default sentence of imprisonment for three months was also provided. The substantive sentence as modified by the appellate court and the direction for payment of compensation are in accordance with the object of legislation and hence required no further interference. 5. Counsel for petitioner requested three months' time to deposit the compensation. Having regard to the amount involved and other circumstances stated by learned counsel, I am inclined to grant two months' time to the petitioner to deposit the compensation. Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted two months' time from this day to deposit the compensation as ordered by the appellate court in the trial court for payment to respondent No.1 Petitioner shall appear in the trail court on 28.7.2009 to receive the sentence. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv