IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1742 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.139/2005 of III ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) FAST TRACK COURT-I, THRISSUR CC.903/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I,CHALAKUDY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- NOUSHAD, S/O.HAMSA, RAYAMMARAKKAL HOUSE, GURUVAYOOR VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------- 1. BIJI.P.SAM, S/O.SAMUEL, PALLIPATTUTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, MURINGOOR THEKKUMMURI VILLAGE, KORATTY DESOM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.M.H. HANILKUMAR FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1742 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2009. ORDER Though when this matter came up for hearing it was found that judgment of the trial court produced along with the revision petition is not complete and petitioner was directed to cure the defect, on going through the judgments under challenge and after hearing learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.1 and Public Prosecutor who took notice for respondent No.2, revision itself is being disposed of. 2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned III Additional Sessions Judge(Adhoc), Fast Track Court-I, Thrissur in Crl.Appeal No.139 of 2005 confirming conviction and sentence imposed on petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). Respondent No.1 filed a private complaint alleging that petitioner borrowed Rs.4,50,000/- from him and issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 23.3.2001 for repayment of that amount. That cheque on presentation was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Ext.P7 is the reply of petitioner to the statutory notice. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1. According to the petitioner he had no transaction with respondent No.1 and instead, his father had transaction with the father of respondent No.1 (DW2), his father borrowed Crl.R.P.No.1742/2009 2 Rs.1,25,000/- from DW2 and at that time his signed blank cheque was given as security. Later major portion of the amount was paid to DW2 but the signed blank cheque was misused. Petitioner gave evidence in that line as DW1. DW2 denied any such transaction as claimed by the petitioner. Ext.D1 is the cheque dated 23.3.2001 for Rs.1,25,000/- allegedly issued by petitioner to DW2. Latter denied receipt of any such cheque. Petitioner had filed O.S.No.584 of 2001 against respondent No.1 and DW2 for a declaration that Ext.P1, cheque is not supported by consideration. Exts.D2 and D4 are the copy of the written statement and plaint, respectively in that case. Ext.D3 is a copy of letter issued from the State Bank of Travancore to DW2. Exts.D5 to D18 are documents relating to O.S.No.584 of 2001 and C.C.No.1003 of 2001. According to the petitioner, he has already sought a declaration in the civil court that Ex.P1 is not supported by consideration. But it is conceded by learned counsel for petitioner that after confirmation of the judgment of learned magistrate in the case on hand by the appellate court petitioner did not pursue that suit. Therefore, production of documents from O.S.No.584 of 2001 is of no assistance to the petitioner. On his contention that transaction was between his father and DW2, there is no acceptable evidence. It is admitted that Ext.P1 is signed by the petitioner and drawn on the account maintained by him. Courts below found that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW1. On going through the judgments under challenge and hearing counsel on both sides I find no reason to differ from that finding. Crl.R.P.No.1742/2009 3 3. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court. There was a direction to pay Rs.4,50,000/- to respondent No.1 as compensation and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Having regard to the nature of offence and object of legislation there is no reason to interfere with the sentence, direction for payment of compensation or default sentence. 4. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted six months’ time to deposit compensation. According to the learned counsel petitioner is placed in financially difficult situation. Counsel also requested that petitioner may be permitted to pay compensation directly. Request for six months’ time is opposed by counsel for respondent No.1. Considering the circumstances of the case and submission made by learned counsel as to the difficulty of petitioner to raise the funds immediately I am inclined to grant time to the petitioner till 30.12.2009 to pay compensation. Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 30.12.2009 from this day to deposit compensation. 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 his counsel acknowledging receipt of compensation within the above Crl.R.P.No.1742/2009 4 said period. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31.12.2009 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks