IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 1985 OF 2009() ------------------------------------------- CRA.545/2007 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-2), THRISSUR ST.1334/2005 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, VADAKKANCHERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------------- M.K.ABDUL SALAM, S/O KOYA, MUTHUKKOTTIL HOUSE, PARUTHIPRA P.O., KUMARANELLOOR, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.M.GEEVARGHESE, S/O MATHAI, MARASSERY HOUSE, VIRUPPAKKA VILLAGE, P.O.VAZHANI, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S. HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.1985 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Respondent No.1 appeared through counsel. Public Prosecutor took notice for respondent No.2. 2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur in Crl. Appeal No.545 of 207 confirming conviction of petitioner but modifying the sentence for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). 3. According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.90,000/- from him and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 21.7.2004. That cheque was dishonoured on 22.7.2004 for insufficiency of funds. On getting intimation about dishonour respondent No.1 issued notice to the petitioner on 7.8.2004 intimating the dishonour and demanding payment of the amount, which was served on petitioner on 9.8.2004. Dishonour of the cheque for reason stated above and issue and service of notice on petitioner are proved by Exts.P2 to P6. There is no challenge to the finding of the courts below regarding the above. 4. So far as execution of the cheque is concerned there is CRL. R.P. No.1985 of 2009 -: 2 :- evidence of respondent No.1 as P.W.1. Petitioner vaguely suggested that the cheque was given to respondent No.1 as a security. But it is seen from the judgments under challenge that evidence of respondent No.1 regarding the transaction and execution of cheque was not seriously challenged by petitioner in cross-examination. Petitioner did not reply to the statutory notice served on him. Courts below found that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.1 regarding the transaction and due execution of the cheque. There is no reason to interfere with that finding of the courts below. Petitioner has not rebutted the presumption against him. His conviction is legal and proper and required no interference. 5. Substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner was modified as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. The direction for payment of compensation was confirmed but default sentence of imprisonment for four months was provided. Considering the nature of offence and object of legislation there is no reason to interfere with the substantive sentence, direction for payment of compensation or default sentence as it now stands. 6. Counsel requested six months’ time to pay the compensation. According to counsel, petitioner is unable to raise the amount in lump immediately. Considering the difficulties expressed by CRL. R.P. No.1985 of 2009 -: 3 :- counsel on behalf of petitioner and the amount involved, petitioner is granted four months’ time to deposit compensation. Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted four months’ time from this day to deposit the compensation in the trial court for payment to respondent No.1. In case of failure petitioner has to undergo simple imprisonment as ordered by the appellate court. It is made clear that it shall 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 compensation within the said period months. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 26.10.2009 to receive the sentence. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv