IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2489 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.148/2008 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MANJERI ST.1912/2005 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, PARAPPANANGADI .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- P.M.UMMER, S/O.MOHAMMED HAJI, PALAMADATHIL HOUSE, KANNAMANGALAM P.O., TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.MATHEW SUNNY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/ STATE AND COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. C.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, CHERATH PARAMBIL HOUSE, A.R.NAGAR P.O., TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR : SRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2489 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 05th day of August 2009 ORDER This revision is in challenge of concurrent finding entered by the courts below regarding due execution of a cheque for discharge of legally enforceable debt/liability. Petitioner faced trial in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-2, Parappanangadi in S.T.No.1912 of 2005 for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to respondent No.2, petitioner borrowed Rs.50000/- from him on 02-11-2004 agreeing to repay the same within two months and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 25-01-2005. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Ext.P2 and evidence of PW2, manager of the drawee bank. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P3 to P5. Respondent No.2 claimed that he has acquaintance with petitioner for fifteen years (before execution of the cheque). Petitioner, when questioned under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the transaction and contended that signature in Ext.P1 is not his. But he did not explain how else the cheque leaf happened to be in the custody of respondent No.2. PW2, manager of the drawee bank stated that petitioner was introduced in that bank by respondent No.2. Courts below found that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.2 and found in Crl.R.P.No.2489 of 2009 2 favour of due execution of the cheque. 2. So far as contention of petitioner that he had not signed the cheque is concerned there is Ext.P6, specimen signature card of petitioner. It is admitted that the cheque is drawn on the account maintained by him. Though he disputed signature in the cheque, no attempt was made by him to get it examined by an expert. It is relevant to show that dishonour of the cheque is not for any dissimilarity in the signature. Respondent No.2 has given evidence that petitioner signed the cheque in his presence. Apart from a bald denial of signature made by petitioner there is no evidence on record to show that the signature in Ext.P1 is forged. It is also relevant to note that inspite of being served with the statutory notice petitioner did not reply to it. Courts below found that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.2. On going through the judgments under challenge and hearing learned counsel I find no reason to differ. Conviction of petitioner therefore is unassailable. 3. Learned Sessions Judge has modified the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court while retaining the direction for payment of compensation and the default sentence. There is no reason to interfere with the sentence as modified or the direction for payment of compensation and default sentence as confirmed by learned Sessions Judge, at the instance of petitioner. Crl.R.P.No.2489 of 2009 3 Learned counsel requested that petitioner is in a financially difficult situation and that he may be granted six months' time to deposit. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to grant petitioner time till 30-12-2009 to deposit compensation. 4. In the result, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 30-12-2009 to deposit the compensation. Deposit if any made by petitioner in any of the courts below shall be adjusted in the compensation directed to be paid. Amount if any deposited can be withdrawn by respondent No.2. It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance of the direction for deposit of compensation if petitioner paid compensation or the balance amount payable if any deposit is already made 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 compensation within the period aforesaid. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31-12-2009 to receive the sentence. Execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance till 31-12-2009. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/