IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2406 OF 2009() ----------------------------------------------- CRA.22/2007 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (SPL.CAURT), KOTTAYAM ST.569/2004 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANTONY @ BABY, AGED 45,S/O.SKARIA, KETTARATHIL HOUSE,ANCHARRY BHAGOM,PERUVANTHANAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. NAZAR,AGED 36,S/O.KASEEM,PUTHENVEETTIL, MUNDAKAYAM,KANJIRAPPALLY. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTD BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2406 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in the revision which is not prejudicial to him. Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. 2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special), Kottayam in Crl. Appeal No.22 of 2007 confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.30,000/- from him on 10.4.2004 undertaking to repay within one month and issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 30.4.2004 for repayment of that amount. Its dishonour for insufficiency of funds is proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Service of notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as P.W.1 and testified to his case. According to the petitioner he had not borrowed any amount from respondent No.1 and instead he had timber business with respondent No.1. In connection with that business signed blank cheque was given. While so alleging that respondent No.1 suffered loss, Ext.D1 notice dated 20.5.2004 was issued on behalf of respondent No.1 claiming Rs.38,890/- by way of damages. As he failed to pay the CRL. R.P. No.2406 of 2009 -: 2 :- amount respondent No.1 filled up the cheque and presented the same. Petitioner examined D.W.1 to prove that contention. It is contended that due execution of the cheque is not proved. 3. Courts below adverted to the evidence of D.W.1. He has only referred to the dispute between respondent No.1 and petitioner regarding the timber business and respondent No.1 claiming damages from petitioner. He is not a witness to the alleged handing over of signed blank cheque. He has no information about the transaction between respondent No.1 and petitioner. Appellate court below has dealt with the matter in paragraph 9 of the judgment. It is stated that D.W.1 has only hearsay information from the petitioner about the transaction spoken to by him. Exhibit D1 notice is dated 20.5.2004 while Ext.P1 is dated 30.4.2004. It is not shown that Ext.D1 is in any way connected with the transaction leading to the execution of Ext.P1. Petitioner has not replied to the notice served on him. In the circumstances courts below are justified in accepting the case of respondent No.1 regarding the transaction and execution of the cheque. I do not find reason to interfere with the same. 4. As per the judgment of the appellate court substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner is only simple imprisonment till rising of the court. Learned Sessions Judge confirmed the direction for payment of compensation but modified the default sentence as simple imprisonment for one month. There is no reason to interfere with the CRL. R.P. No.2406 of 2009 -: 3 :- sentence imposed by the appellate court, direction for payment of compensation or the default sentence at the instance of petitioner. 5. Learned counsel requested six months’ time to deposit compensation. It is submitted that petitioner is in deep financial crisis and is unable to raise the amount immediately. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel petitioner is granted time till 30.12.2009 to deposit the compensation. Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 30.12.2009 to deposit the compensation in the trial court as ordered by that court. It is made clear that it shall be sufficient compliance with 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 compensation within the said period. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31.12.2009 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any, against petitioner will remain in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv