IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2253 of 2009 ------------------------------ CRA.506/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-1), KOTTAYAM ST.1101/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- VIJAYACHANDRAN,KARAPLACKAL HOUSE, KORUTHODU P.O.,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ---------------------------------------------- 1. K.M.NISSAMUDDEEN,KAKKOTHIL HOUSE, PARATHODU P.O.,KOTTAYAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR : SRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2253 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 13th 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. Heard counsel for petitioner and public prosecutor who took notice for respondent No.2. 2. Petitioner challenges concurrent finding entered by the courts below regarding due execution of the cheque for discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. He faced trial in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-1, Kancjirappally in S.C.No.1101 of 2005. Case is that petitioner borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from respondent No.1 and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque. Its dishonour for insufficiency of funds is proved by Ext.P2. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P3 to P5. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and spoke to his case. According to the petitioner, he had entered into an agreement with one Aseez for construction of a building and given signed blank cheque to the him as security. He had no transaction with respondent No.1. The signed blank cheque given to Aseez has been misused. Respondent No.1 when examined as PW1 denied that suggestion. As regards the contention raised by petitioner, what is available is only the suggestion put to respondent No.1. Petitioner did not adduce evidence or bring Crl.R.P.No.2253 of 2009 2 out circumstance to prove or probabilise his contention. It is admitted that Ext.P1 is signed by petitioner and drawn on his account. Nothing is brought out to disbelieve evidence of respondent No.1 regarding transaction and execution of the cheque. Petitioner did not reply to the statutory notice served on him. In the circumstances I do not find reason to interfere with the concurrent finding entered by the courts below regarding execution of the cheque. 3. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and directed payment of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Default sentence of imprisonment for two months was also provided. appellate court while confirming order for payment of compensation and default sentence modified substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. There is no reason to interfere. 4. Learned counsel requested that six months' time may be granted to petitioner to deposit compensation. Learned counsel says that petitioner is unable to raise the amount immediately on account of financial difficulties and old age illness. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be permitted to pay compensation directly to respondent No.1. Considering the circumstances stated, I am inclined to grant time till 30-12-2009 for deposit of compensation. Resultantly this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is Crl.R.P.No.2253 of 2009 3 granted time till 30-12-2009 to deposit compensation as ordered by the trail 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 the amount within the period aforesaid. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31-12-2009 to receive the sentence. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/