IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2662 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.193/2008 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC)-I, PALAKKAD ST.1698/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- S.BAIJU AGED 39 YRS.,S/O.SANTHAKUMAR, SANDHYA NIVAS, NEAR CHATTANIKKARA TEMPLE, THATHAMANGALAM POST, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT BY ADV. SMT.V.SHYLAJA SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: --------------- 1. M/S.SREE GOKULAM CHIT AND FINANCE CO.(P) LTD, CORPORATE OFFICE,SREE GOKULAM TOWERS, NO:66 ARCOT ROAD, CHENNAI REP BY P.C.APPUKUTTAN, S/O.CHAMIAR, ASST.MANAGER, GOKULAM CHIT AND FINANCE CO.(P)LTD, PALAKKAD BRANCH OFFICE AT 12/ 1053-3,THERADAPUZHA BUILDING,R.S.ROAD, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R.JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2662 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2009. ORDER 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 it. 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.193 of 2008 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 which is a private limited company engaged in conducting kuri, petitioner subscribed to a kuri and to discharge the liability to the tune of Rs.29,502/- issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 25.4.2005. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Ext.P4 series and Ext.P5. PW1, Assistant Manager of respondent No.1 gave evidence regarding the transaction leading to execution of the cheque. Ext.P6 is the true extract of the resolution of respondent No.1. According to the petitioner a signed blank cheque was given as security at the time of his joining the kuri and no such amount is due. Petitioner gave evidence as DW1 and proved Ext.D1, chitty pass book where the balance payable by petitioner is stated as Rs.16,220/-. Courts below did not Crl.R.P.No.2662/2009 2 accept the explanation of petitioner and found him guilty. 3. It is true that in Ext.D1, balance amount payable is stated as Rs.16,220/-. PW1 has given evidence that as per the bye-law of the company if a subscriber defaulted payment he/she is not entitled to get dividend and respondent No.1 is entitled to realise interest at the rate of 24% per annum. It is calculating interest on the sum of Rs.16,220/- at that rate that amount payable came to Rs.29,502/-. That explanation of PW1 was accepted by the courts below. Though petitioner contended that he has discharged the entire liability, there is no evidence in that line except his interested version as DW1. Petitioner did not reply to the statutory notice. Nothing is brought out to disbelieve the evidence of PW1. Petitioner has not rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Act. It is in these circumstances that courts below found in favour of due execution of the cheque. I do not find reason to interfere with that finding. 4. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. There is a direction for payment of compensation of Rs.29,502/- to respondent No.1 and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Appellate court while retaining direction for payment of compensation and the default sentence, modified the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. I do not find reason to interfere with the substantive sentence as modified or the direction for payment of compensation and the default sentence as confirmed by the appellate court . Crl.R.P.No.2662/2009 3 5. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted six months’ time to deposit the compensation since petitioner is in a financially difficult situation and is unable to raise the amount immediately. it is also requested that petitioner may be permitted to pay compensation directly to respondent No.1. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel and considering the amount involved, I am inclined to grant time to the petitioner till 21.12.2009 to deposit/pay compensation. Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 21.12.2009 from this day to deposit compensation in the trial court. It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance of the direction for payment of compensation if petitioner paid 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 stated period. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 23.12.2009 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks