IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2772 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.491/2008 of ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE(ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE KOTTAYAM ST.2134/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(MOBILE), KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------- P.C.PHILIP, PALAPURACKAL HOUSE, MARIYATHURUTHU, MALLOOSSERY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.AJEESH K.SASI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND NOT PARTY ---------------------------------------- 1. SAJU K.MATHEW, ROKRIDGE, OLASSA KARA, AYMANAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No. 2772 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of August, 2009 O R D E R This revision petition is in challenge of judgment of learned Sessions Judge(Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge) Kottayam iN Crl Appeal No. 491 of 2008 confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act(for short “the Act”). According to Respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.40,000/- from him in March, 2004 and issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 15.6.2004 for repayment of that amount. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Ext P2 and P3. Respondent No.1 served statutory notice on petitioner as proved by Exts. P4 to P6. He gave evidence as PW1 and testified to his case. Case of petitioner is that he gave a signed blank cheque to respondent No.1 to be given to another person as security. DW1 stated that he saw petitioner giving a signed blank cheque to respondent No.1. Courts below were not impressed Crl.R.P. No. 2772 OF 2009 . : 2 : by the contention raised by petitioner or the evidence given by DW1, accepted the evidence of respondent no.1 and found the petitioner guilty. It is contented that conviction is not legal or proper. 2. It is not disputed that Ext.P1 contained the signature of petitioner and that the cheque was drawn on the account maintained by him. It is also not disputed that petitioner had handed over the cheque to respondent no.1 though, according to him in signed blank form to be given to another person as security. Petitioner did not say to whom that signed blank cheque was intended to be given by respondent no.1. DW1 in cross examination stated that he does not know whether anything was written in the cheque petitionerhad handed over to respondent no.1. A further fact is to be noted is that petitioner did not respond to the statutory notice served on him. In these circumstances, Courts below are justified in holding in favour of due execution of the cheque. There is little reason to interfere. 3. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Petitioner was directed to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- to respondent no.1 and in Crl.R.P. No. 2772 OF 2009 . : 3 : default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Appellate Court while confirming direction for payment of compensation and default sentence modified the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. Having regard to the nature of the offence and the amount involved, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence as modified or, the direction for payment of compensation and default sentence as confirmed by the appellate court, at the instance of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel has requested six months' time to the petitioner to deposit compensation. It is stated that petitioner, on account of financial difficulties is unable to raise the amount immediately. Learned counsel requested that the petitioner may be permitted to pay compensation directly to the respondent no.1 Considering the circumstances stated by the learned counsel and the amount involved, I am inclined to grant time to the petitioner till 5.1.2010. Resultantly this revision petition is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 5.1.2010 to deposit the compensation in the trial court as ordered by the courts below. It is made clear that it shall be sufficient compliance with the direction for Crl.R.P. No. 2772 OF 2009 . : 4 : deposit of compensation if petitioner paid the compensation to respondent no.1 through his counsel in the trial court and the respondent no. 1 filed statement in the trial court through his counsel acknowledging receipt of compensation within the aforesaid time. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 7.1.2010 to receive the sentence. Until then, execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance. ( THOMAS P. JOSEHP, JUDGE) jma