IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2632 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.619/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.905/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- V.SUNILBABU,AGED 49 YEARS,ANJUTHENGIL, THIRUVAMBADI.P.O,ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. SMT.ANILA PETER RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. A.V.USHA,W/O.PRADEEP,AGED 42 YEARS, ASWATHY,KODUMBU,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR : SRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2632 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 14th day of August 2009 ORDER This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Palakkad in Criminal Appeal No.619 of 2007 confirming conviction and sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to respondent No.2, petitioner borrowed Rs.300000/- from her and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 23-11-2005. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as seen from the evidence of PW2 and Exts.P2, P3 and P6. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 series and P5. Contention of petitioner is that when one Ravichandran borrowed money from respondent No.2, the latter obtained a signed blank cheque from petitioner as security and that has been misused. Courts below did not accept that explanation of petitioner. The finding regarding execution of cheque is under challenge in this revision. 2. It is true that respondent No.2 had a case that she had advanced Rs.5,55,000/- to Ravichandran, a friend of her husband and on repayment of that amount petitioner borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- while, according to the petitioner, his signed blank cheque was taken by respondent No.2 when Ravichandran borrowed the amount. But there is no evidence to show that it was as a security for the transaction with Crl.R.P.No.2632 of 2009 2 Ravichandran that the cheque was given by petitioner. He has not adduced any evidence nor brought out any circumstance to prove or probabilise that contention. Nor has petitioner replied to the statutory notice served on him. There was nothing in the evidence of respondent No.2 to disbelieve her version regarding the transaction and due execution of the cheque. It is in the circumstances that courts below accepted version of respondent No.2 and found petitioner guilty. I do not find reason to interfere with that finding. 3. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. There is also a direction for payment of compensation of Rs. Three lakhs to respondent No.2 and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Appellate court did not interfere with the sentence or direction regarding payment of compensation. It is contended that sentence awarded is excessive. It is requested that petitioner may be granted six months' time to deposit the compensation since according to the learned counsel petitioner is in financially difficult condition. A further request is that petitioner may allowed to pay compensation directly to respondent No.2. 4. Having regard to the amount involved I find no reason to interfere with the direction for payment of compensation at the instance of petitioner. However I am satisfied that simple imprisonment till rising of the court is sufficient in the ends of justice. Crl.R.P.No.2632 of 2009 3 Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel petitioner is granted time till 14-01-2010 to deposit/pay the compensation. 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 14-01—2010 to deposit compensation as ordered by learned magistrate. In case of failure petitioner has to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 3. It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance of the direction for deposit of compensation if petitioner paid compensation to respondent No.2 through his counsel in the trial court and respondent No.2 filed a statement in the trial court through her counsel acknowledging receipt of compensation within the period aforesaid. 4. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 15-01-2010 to receive the sentence. Execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance till 15-01-2010. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/