IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2009 / 9TH SRAVANA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2450 OF 2009() -------------------------------------------- CRA.126/2006 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-III, THALASSERY STC.4002/2004 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------------------- PARAPRATH VALSAN, AGED 55 YEARS, MANJILA NIVAS, NEAR MANOLI KAVU, ILLATHUTHAZHA, THALASSERY-3. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- 1. M.ABDULSATHAR, S/O.ABOOBACKER, SARUMMA MANZIL, NEAR SANTHOSH TALKIES, MUZHAPPILANGAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2450 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 31st day of July, 2009 O R D E R -------------- This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-III), Thalassery in Crl. Appeal No.126 of 2006 confirming conviction and sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.3,50,000/- from him and issued cheque dated 17.5.2004 for its repayment. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds which is proved by Exts.P2. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P3 and P4. Exhibit P5 is the reply. According to the petitioner he has no transaction with respondent No.1, nor issued any cheque to him. Instead he had given signed blank cheque to one Pandu Sait. Petitioner gave evidence in that line as D.W.1. So far as execution of cheque is concerned there is evidence of respondent No.1. It is admitted that Ext.P1 is signed by the petitioner and drawn on the account maintained by him. His contention in Ext.P5, reply and evidence as D.W.1 is that the cheque was given to Pandu sait. That suggestion was denied by respondent No.1. It is true that petitioner has given evidence in that line as D.W.1 but courts below were not CRL. R.P. No.2450 of 2009 -: 2 :- impressed by that evidence. Petitioner has not produced materials to show that he had any transaction with Pandu Sait. The interested version of D.W.1 alone is not sufficient when respondent No.1 is relying on the cheque admittedly drawn by the petitioner on the account maintained by him and there is no reason to disbelieve respondent No.1. Courts below are justified in holding in favour of due execution of the cheque. 2. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. He was directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months. Learned Additional Sessions Judge did not interfere with the sentence, direction for payment of compensation or the default sentence. It is contended that sentence imposed is excessive. Considering the nature of the offence I am satisfied that simple imprisonment till rising of the court is sufficient in the ends of justice. There is however, no reason to interfere with the direction for payment of compensation or the default sentence at the instance of petitioner. 3. Learned counsel requested six months’ time to deposit the compensation in the trail court. He submitted that petitioner is unable to raise the amount immediately and that petitioner may be permitted to pay the compensation directly to respondent No.1. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel and the amount involved I CRL. R.P. No.2450 of 2009 -: 3 :- am inclined to grant time till 30.12.2009. Resultantly, this revision petition is allowed in part to the following extent: (i) Sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. (ii) Petitioner is granted time till 30.12.2009 to deposit the compensation in the trial court as ordered by the learned magistrate. (iii) It is made clear that it shall be sufficient compliance with 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 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 petitioner will remain in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv