IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2669 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.480/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC-I), ERNAKULAM CC.123/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOLENCHERRY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- K.Y.KURIAKOSE, AGED 45, S/O YACOB, KUMBALAMKUDIYIL HOUSE, KADAYIRIPPU P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THANKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S)/ADDL.RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: --------------- 1. JOHN, AGED 58, S/O LATE PAILY, PATHIRAKKATTU HOUSE, EZHUPURAM KARA, MAZHUVANNUR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R.JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2669 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th 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. On a complaint preferred by the original complainant, learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolenchery tried petitioner in C.C.No.123 of 2004 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). According to the original complainant, petitioner borrowed Rs.20,000/- from her and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 26.12.2003. Its dishonour for insufficiency of funds is proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 to P6. During the pendency of the case before the learned magistrate, original complainant died and her husband was permitted to continue prosecution of the case (he is respondent No.1 in this revision). He gave evidence as PW1 and testified to the transaction. According to the petitioner, he borrowed Rs.5,000/- from PW1 and gave signed blank cheque which has been misused. It is contended that finding of the courts below regarding execution of the cheque is not correct. 3. It is not disputed that Ext.P1 contained the signature of petitioner Crl.R.P.No.2669/2009 2 and is drawn on the account maintained by him. Though he contended that he borrowed only Rs.5,000/- from PW1 (respondent No.1) latter denied that. There is no evidence or circumstance to show that petitioner gave signed blank cheque in the circumstances pleaded by him. Petitioner has also not replied to the statutory notice. Nothing was brought out to disbelieve the evidence given by respondent No.1. In the circumstances I do not find reason to interfere with the concurrent finding entered by the courts below and the consequent conviction of petitioner. 4. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. There was a direction for payment of compensation of Rs.20,000/- to respondent No.1 and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Appellate court modified the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. No interference was made with respect to the direction for payment of compensation and default sentence. Having regard to the nature of offence, object of legislation and the amount involved there is no reason to interfere with the substantive sentence as modified by the appellate court or direction for payment of compensation and default sentence as confirmed by that court, at the instance of petitioner. 5. Learned counsel submitted that since petitioner on account of financial difficulties is unable to raise the amount immediately, he may be granted six months’ time to deposit compensation. Learned counsel requested Crl.R.P.No.2669/2009 3 that petitioner may be permitted to pay compensation directly to respondent No.1. Having regard to the circumstances stated by learned counsel, I am inclined to grant time to the petitioner till 18.12.2009 to deposit compensation. Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 18.12.2009 to deposit compensation in the trial court 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 21.12.2009 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks