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. 2229 of 2009() ---------------------------------------- CRA.106/2006 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOTTAYAM CC.861/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, ETTUMANUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------- MANI K.JACOB, KUNNAKATTU, KARAPPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS,COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MADHU P.SIVAN, PUTHIYATHIL HOUSE, ARPOOKARA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. JAYAKRISHNAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2229 of 2009 ORDER ON CRL. M.A. NO.6737/2008 IN CRL.R.P. NO.2229/2009 DISMISSED SD/- 10/7/2009 THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE Sbna/- THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2229 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 10th day of July 2009 ORDER This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Kottayam in criminal appeal No.106 of 2006 confirming conviction and sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). Case arose on a complaint preferred by respondent No.1. He alleged that petitioner borrowed Rs.150000/- from him on 22-05-04 and issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 22-06-04 for repayment of that amount. The cheque as seen from Exts.P2 and P3 was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Respondent No.1 issued statutory notice but it was returned unclaimed inspite of intimation given to the petitioner. Issue and return of notice are proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Courts below found that notice was issued to petitioner in the correct address and that there is deemed service of notice. 2. According to the petitioner, he had borrowed Rs.10000/- from one Babu and given signed blank cheque. That cheque was misused. It is contended that finding of the courts below regarding execution of the cheque is not correct. 3. So far as transaction and alleged execution of cheque are concerned there is evidence of respondent No.1. Though petitioner contended that he had no transaction and that he had given signed Crl.R.P.No.2229 of 2009 2 blank cheque to one Babu there is no evidence or circumstance to prove or probabilise that contention. Respondent No.1 denied that suggestion. Result is that there is no material to show that the cheque happened to be in the custody of respondent No.1 in the circumstances stated by petitioner. In the above circumstances courts below are justified in holding in favour of due execution of cheque. 4. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. He was directed to pay compensation of Rs.150000/- to respondent No.1. A default sentence of imprisonment for one month also awarded. Appellate court did not interfere with the sentence or direction for payment of compensation and the default sentence. Learned counsel submits that sentence awarded to the petitioner is excessive and requested for modification and six months' time to pay compensation. 5. I am inclined to think, in the nature of offence committed and the amount involved that imprisonment till rising of the court is sufficient in the ends of justice. There is no reason to interfere with the direction for payment of compensation. Considering the circumstances stated by the learned counsel I am inclined to grant petitioner time till 09-12-2009 to deposit compensation as ordered by the learned magistrate. In case of failure to deposit compensation petitioner has to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Crl.R.P.No.2229 of 2009 3 Resultantly this revision is allowed in part to the following extent: (1)Substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. (2)Petitioner is granted time till 09-12-2009 to deposit compensation as ordered by learned magistrate. In case of failure he has to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. (3) It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance of the direction for deposit of compensation if petitioner paid the 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 the amount within the period aforesaid. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 10-12-2009 to receive the sentence. Execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance till 10-12-2009. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/