IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2234 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.159/2005 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT FAST TRACK COURT- III, PALAKKAD CC.142/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- RAJENDRAN, S/O.RAJAN.V., RAJ NIVAS, MANTHURUTHI, KAVA, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. PRADEEP, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, PARTNER, ZOOM COMPUTERS, 10/460, OLASSERY COMPLEX, CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2234 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th 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 which is not prejudicial to him. Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. 2. On concurrent finding regarding execution of the cheque petitioner stands convicted for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Palakkad convicted petitioner in C.C.No.142 of 2003 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment and payment of compensation. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track-III, Palakkad while disposing of Crl.Appeal No.159 of 2005 confirmed conviction but modified sentence. 3. According to respondent No.1 petitioner purchased computer and other accessories from him as per invoice for a total sum of Rs.28,875/- and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 27.9.2002. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Ext.P2. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P3 to P5. Petitioner neither replied nor paid the amount. Hence the complaint. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1. He proved Exts.P7 series and P8 series, invoices as per which petitioner allegedly purchased computer and accessories. According to Crl.R.P.No.2234/2009 2 the petitioner, he has already discharged the liability. He produced Ext.D1 series. It is contended by learned counsel that payments as per Ext.D1 series are not taken into account by the courts below. Respondent No.1 when examined as PW1 admitted Ext.D1 series but claimed that it related to an earlier transaction. As per Exts.D1(a) and (b) petitioner paid Rs.1,650/- on 8.10.2002 and another sum of Rs.5,000/- on 23.10.2002. PW1 has claimed that the said payments did not pertain to the purchase covered by Exts.P7 series and P8 series and the amount covered as per Ext.P1. Courts below observed that it is not shown that payments as per Ext.D1 series related to the transaction stated by respondent No.1 and found that petitioner issued the cheque for discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. On going through the judgments under challenge and hearing learned counsel I do not find reason to interfere with that finding. 4. Learned magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. There was a direction for payment of compensation of Rs.28,875/- to respondent No.1. Default sentence of imprisonment for one month was provided. Appellate court modified the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court and directed payment of compensation of Rs.35,000/- to respondent No.1. A default sentence of imprisonment for one month was also provided. I do not find reason to interfere with the sentence as modified by the appellate court or the direction for payment of compensation and default sentence. 5. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted four Crl.R.P.No.2234/2009 3 months’ time to deposit compensation in the trial court as he is in financially difficult situation. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined to allow the request. Petitioner is granted four months’ time from today to deposit compensation. Resultantly this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted four months’ time to deposit compensation as ordered by the appellate 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 its counsel acknowledging receipt of compensation within the period aforesaid. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 12.11.2009 to receive the sentence. Execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance till 12.11.2009. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks