IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2009 / 21ST SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2594 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.330/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.676/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- P.S.NANDAKISHORE, NANDADEEPAM, EASWAR GARDENS, CALICUT BYPASS ROAD, SEKHARIPURAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SMT.P.MAYA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: --------------- 1. GOPINATH.P., S/O CHANDRADAS, KAMALANIVAS, PULLIYASSERI, KODUNTHIRAPPULLY, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2594 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 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. Faced with a concurrent finding as to the due execution of a cheque for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability, conviction and sentence petitioner has come up in revision. He faced trial in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Palakkad in S.T.No.676 of 2005 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.40,000/- from him undertaking to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and issued three cheques for the discharge of that liability. Exts.P1 and P2 are two of those cheques for a total sum of Rs.20,600/-. Dishonour of those cheques for insufficiency of funds is proved by Ext.P3. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Ext.P4 series. Petitioner did not send reply nor pay the amount. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and testified to the transaction. According to the petitioner, he had given the cheques to one V.K.Gopinath with whom he had some other transaction. Petitioner did not prove or probabilise that contention. Courts below found that Crl.R.P.No.2594/2009 2 there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.1. I find no reason to differ from that finding. 3. While confirming the direction for payment of compensation of Rs.20,600/- and default sentence of imprisonment for one month, learned Sessions Judge modified substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. There is no reason to interfere with the substantive sentence as modified by the appellate court or the direction for payment of compensation and default sentence as confirmed by that court, at the instance of petitioner. 4. Learned counsel contended that petitioner is involved in other similar cases, that petitioner is in a financially difficult situation and is unable to raise the amount immediately. Counsel requested that petitioner may be granted six months’ time to deposit compensation and that petitioner may be permitted to pay compensation directly to respondent No.1. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined to grant time to the petitioner till 21.12.2009 to deposit compensation. Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 21.12.2009 to deposit compensation in the trial court. It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance of the direction for deposit 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 his counsel acknowledging receipt of compensation within the above Crl.R.P.No.2594/2009 3 said period. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 22.12.2009 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks