IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2009 / 18TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2212 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.502/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT-II, KOZHIKODE ST.511/2006 of SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- T.P. IBRAHIM, S/O. ASSAINAR, DOCUMENT WRITER, IDIYANGARA, FRANCIS ROAD, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------- 1. E.K. VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O. KRISHNAN, EDAVALAKKATTU, P.O. KOLATHARA, KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR : SRI C S HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2212 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 09th day of July 2009 ORDER Notice is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in this revision which is not prejudicial to him. Heard counsel for petitioner and public prosecutor. 2. Concurrent finding entered by the courts below regarding due execution of the cheque for discharge of legally enforceable debt/liability is challenged in this revision. According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.75,000/- from him on 01-11-05 and issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 10-12-05 for repayment of that amount. Dishonour of the cheque for insufficiency of funds is proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Issue and service of statutory notice on petitioner are proved by Ext.P4 series. These findings are not challenged in this revision. According to the petitioner he borrowed Rs.5000/- from a friend of his and gave a signed blank cheque as security which has been misused . It was so suggested to respondent No.1, but he denied that. He asserted that petitioner borrowed Rs.75000/- from him and issued the cheque. Petitioner failed to adduce evidence to prove or probabilise his contention. He did not reply to the statutory notice served on him. Nothing is brought out to disbelieve evidence of respondent No.1 regarding transaction and execution of the cheque. It is in these circumstances that courts below accepted evidence of respondent Crl.R.P.No.2212 of 2009 2 NO.1 and found that petitioner issued the cheque for discharge of legally enforceable debt/liability. No interference is called for. 3. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and directed payment of compensation of Rs.75000/- to respondent No.1. Default sentence of one month was also provided. Appellate court while confirming direction for payment of compensation and default sentence modified substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. No interference is required with the sentence as modified or direction for payment of compensation and default sentence. 4. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted six months' time to deposit the compensation. Learned counsel states that petitioner is placed in a difficult situation and is unable to raise the amount immediately. Considering circumstances stated by learned counsel, four months' time from today is granted to deposit the compensation. Resultantly this revision fails and it is dismissed. Petitioner is granted four months' time from today to deposit compensation in trial court. It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance of the direction for deposit 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 Crl.R.P.No.2212 of 2009 3 counsel acknowledging receipt of compensation within the period aforesaid. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 11-11-09 to receive the sentence. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/