IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH SATURDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2009 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 1617 OF 2009() ------------------------------------------------- CRA.141/2007 OF SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKOE CC.760/1999 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-V, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHIRAYIL SURENDRAN, S/O.DAMODARAN NAIR, AGED 46 YEARS, SREEPADAM, 27/309, PUTHIYARA P.O., CALICUT - 673 004. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. C.K.RAHEAL, ROSE COTTAGE, GURUVAYURAPPAN COLLEGE P.O., CALICUT - 14. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO. 1617 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2009 O R D E R -------------- This revision arose from the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Kozhikode in Crl.Appeal No.141 of 1997 confirming conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”) but modifying the sentence. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that conviction of the petitioner is not legal and proper. Counsel for respondent No.2 contended that there is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the judgments under challenge requiring interference. 2. According to respondent No.2, petitioner borrowed Rs.5,50,000/- from him undertaking to repay the amount within one month and for the discharge of that liability petitioner issued Ext.P1, cheque. Further contention of respondent No.2 is that the cheque when presented for encashment was dishonoured on 21.5.1999 as payment was stopped by the petitioner. Respondent No.2 got dishonour intimation on 27.5.1999 following which notice was issued to the petitioner on 29.5.1999 intimating dishonour and demanding payment. Petitioner sent reply taking contentions which according to respondent No.2 were false. Before the learned Magistrate respondent CRL. R.P. No.1617 of 2009 -: 2 :- No.2 gave evidence as P.W1 and proved Exts.P2 to P5. Dishonour of the cheque for the reason of stopping payment is proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Exhibits P4 series show issue and service of notice. Exhibit P5 is the reply. 3. As against the version of respondent No.2, petitioner contended in Ext.P5 that he had not borrowed Rs.5,50,000/- from respondent No.2. There was, however a transaction between his brother and respondent No.2 concerning a sum of Rs.50,000/- and at the time of respondent No.2 advancing that amount to his brother, as insisted by respondent No.2 he happened to give a signed blank cheque and also his title deed as security. That cheque has been misused. Petitioner, did not adduce any evidence in support of his version. Learned magistrate accepted the evidence of respondent No.2, found the petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. That has been accepted by the appellate court. 4. Though it is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that conviction is not legal and proper, I do not find justifiable reason to hold so. As against what is contended in Ext.P5 what the petitioner stated when questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that he had availed a loan of Rs.10,000/- from CRL. R.P. No.1617 of 2009 -: 3 :- respondent No.2 and as security gave a signed blank cheque. That contention contradicts the contention taken by the petitioner in Ext.P5, reply notice. On a consideration of the facts as disclosed in the judgments under challenge which are not disputed I find no reason to interfere with the conviction entered on the petitioner. 5. Learned magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and directed payment of compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-. A default clause for non-payment of compensation was also incorporated. In appeal, the substantive sentence was modified as simple imprisonment till the rising of court while the direction for payment of compensation was confirmed. Considering nature of the offence, amount involved and object of legislation there is little reason to interfere with the finding entered by the appellate court. 6. At this stage counsel for petitioner requested for six months’ time to deposit the compensation. Request is opposed by counsel for respondent No.2. It is seen that cheque is dated 15.4.1999, complaint was filed in the year 1999 and case was disposed of by the learned magistrate in the year 2007. Now in 2009 the request of counsel for petitioner for six months’ time cannot be CRL. R.P. No.1617 of 2009 -: 4 :- granted. I am inclined to grant three months’ time to deposit the compensation. Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted three months’ time from this day to deposit the composition in the trial court. It is made clear that it shall be sufficient compliance of the direction for deposit of compensation if petitioner paid the compensation to respondent No.2 through his counsel in the trial court and respondent No.2 filed a statement in the trial court through his counsel acknowledging receipt of the compensation within the said period three months. Petitioner shall appear on 26.8.2009 in the trial court to receive the sentence. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv