IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2549 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.172/2004 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CC.672/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- SUNIL, S/O.RAJAN, ARUKUTTY HOUSE, MANATHALA, NEAR NAGAYAKSHI TEMPLE, CHAVAKKAD P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------ 1. RAJAN, S/O.GANGADHARAN, PONTHAYIL HOUSE, ARIYOOR DESOM, PUNNAYOOR AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2549 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of August, 2009. ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in this revision which is not prejudicial to him. Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. 2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur in Crl.Appeal No.172 of 2004 confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.80,000/- from him on 15.5.1999 and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque. Dishonour of that cheque for insufficiency of funds is proved by Exts. P2 and P3. Notice issued to the petitioner was returned unclaimed. This is proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and spoke to his case. According to the petitioner, he borrowed Rs.50,000/- from respondent No.1 and gave signed blank cheque as security. That amount was repaid but there was some dispute regarding payment of interest. Hence respondent No.1 has misused the cheque. Courts below did not accept the explanation of petitioner. It is contended that the finding of courts below regarding due execution of the cheque is not correct. 3. It is not disputed that petitioner had money transaction with Crl.R.P.No.2549/2009 2 respondent No.1 and that in connection with that, the cheque in question was given to respondent No.1. Petitioner was not able either by producing evidence or bringing out circumstance to prove that petitioner had transaction with respondent No.1 covering Rs.50,000/- or he repaid the amount. Courts below found no evidence or circumstance to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.1. That, the notice was returned unclaimed inspite of giving intimation indicated that petitioner was aware of the nature of claim being made on behalf of respondent No.1. On going through the judgments under challenge and hearing counsel I find no reason to interfere with the finding of the courts below as to due execution of the cheque. 4. Substantive sentence awarded by the learned magistrate was modified by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. The direction for payment of compensation was confirmed. Default sentence was modified as simple imprisonment for two months. I find no reason to interfere with the substantive sentence, compensation awarded and the default sentence as modified by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at the instance of petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner requested that petitioner may be granted six months’ time to deposit compensation since petitioner on account of financial difficulties is unable to raise the amount immediately. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel, I am inclined to grant time to the Crl.R.P.No.2549/2009 3 petitioner till 21.12.2009 to deposit compensation. Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 21.12.2009 to deposit compensation as ordered by the trial court. It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance of 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 above said period. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 22.12.2009 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks