IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2411 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.170/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM ST.27/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- M.A.BABU, MARYTHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERANELLOOR, KANAYANNOOR, NOW WORKING AS PEON, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS SMT.RUBY K.JOSE RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. M.V.SUNDERASAN, MANALEL HOUSE, THEKKUMGOPURAM, KOTTAYAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR : SRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2411 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 29th day of July 2009 ORDER Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in this revision which is not prejudicial to him. Heard counsel for petitioner and public prosecutor who took notice for respondent No.1. 2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Kottayam in criminal appeal No.170 of 2007 confirming conviction and sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to respondent No.2, petitioner borrowed Rs.45000/- from him and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 18-08-2005. Dishonour of that cheque for insufficiency of funds is proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Respondent No.2 gave evidence as PW1 and testified to his case. He claimed that he lent the amount to petitioner in May, 2005. Petitioner, while contenting that he had no transaction with respondent No.2 had no satisfactory explanation as to how else the cheque signed by him reached respondent No.2. He has not replied to the statutory notice served on petitioner. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.2. Courts below in the circumstances are justified in holding in favour of due execution of the cheque. Crl.R.P.No.2411 of 2009 2 3. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. There is also a direction for payment of compensation of Rs.45000/- and default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month. Appellate court did not interfere with the sentence, direction for payment of compensation or default sentence. Learned counsel submits that petitioner has been taken to custody and is undergoing imprisonment from 24-07-2009 onwards. Petitioner is now in District Jail, Kollam. Learned counsel requested that substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner may be modified and that time may be granted to petitioner to pay the compensation. 4. Having regard to the nature of offence and object of legislation I am satisfied that period of imprisonment already undergone by petitioner is sufficient in the ends of justice. There is no reason to interfere with the direction for payment of compensation. Petitioner is granted time till 30-12-2009 to pay compensation failing which he has to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Resultantly this revision is allowed in part to the following extent: 1. Substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified, confined and limited to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. 2. Petitioner is granted time till 30-12-2009 to deposit compensation in the trial court. In case of failure he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Crl.R.P.No.2411 of 2009 3 3. It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance of the direction for deposit of compensation if petitioner paid 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 amount within the period aforesaid. 4. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31-12-2009 in case compensation is not deposited/paid as aforesaid. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/