IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2160 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.680/2007 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.275/2006 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-III, NEDUMANGAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- K.VIJAYAKUMAR,S/O. KARUNAKARAN, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,PALLUVALLY, MEENMUTTY P.O. BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT& STATE --------------------------------------------- 1. R.ANIKUTTAN,S/O. RAGAVAN NADAR, ARYA BHAVAN, PALLUVALLYM MEENMUTTY P.O. PALODE VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNNAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2160 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2009. ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in this revision and which is not prejudicial to him. Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. 2. Petitioner faced trial in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Nedumangad in C.C.No.275 of 2006 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). Case arose on a private complaint preferred by respondent No.1 alleging that petitioner borrowed Rs.78,000/- from him and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 12.4.2006. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Ext.P2. Statutory notice was served on petitioner as proved by Exts.P3 to P5. Petitioner sent a reply. Respondent No.1 was not satisfied with the reply and filed the complaint. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and stated about the transaction leading to the execution of cheque. Petitioner admitted that he borrowed Rs.78,000/- from respondent No.1 and gave the cheque (Ext.P1)but he claimed that the matter was settled between him and respondent No.1 at Rs.68,000/- out of which he repaid Rs.12,500/-. It is not disputed that the said payment of Rs.12,500/- was after the dishonour of the cheque and filing of the complaint. In evidence it came out that Crl.R.P.No.2160/2009 2 on 8.5.2007 petitioner paid Rs.10,000/- and on 29.6.2007 another sum of Rs.2,500/-, to respondent No.1. Learned magistrate found that the cheque was issued in favour of respondent No.1 in discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability and awarded simple imprisonment for twenty days. Deducting the amount already paid, petitioner was directed to pay compensation of Rs.65,500/- to respondent No.1 and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for ten days. Petitioner preferred an appeal. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram dismissed that appeal. In this revision learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted six months’ time to deposit compensation. 3. On the execution of cheque for discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability there is no challenge. Apart from that there is evidence of respondent No.1. Nothing is brought out to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.1. Courts below have considered the evidence and found that petitioner executed the cheque for discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability which I find no reason to interfere. 4. So far as substantive sentence is concerned I am satisfied that simple imprisonment till rising of the court is sufficient in the ends of justice. There is no reason to interfere with the direction for payment of compensation as ordered by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court. At the same time, in the case of non-payment of compensation, since the substantive sentence is being interfered with, petitioner has to undergo simple imprisonment for thirty days. Considering the difficulties experienced by the petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.2160/2009 3 raising the amount immediately, he is granted four months’ time to deposit the compensation as ordered. Resultantly, this revision is allowed in part to the following extent: i. Substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. ii. Petitioner is granted four months’ time to deposit compensation in the trial court as ordered by the trial court for payment to respondent No.1. In case of failure, petitioner has to undergo simple imprisonment for thirty days. iii. 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 counsel acknowledging receipt of compensation within the said period of four months. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 9.11.2009 to receive the sentence. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks