IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 748 OF 2006() ------------------------------------------ CRA.581/2004 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA CC.658/2001 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHERTHALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------- STANLEY DANIEL, S/O. DANIEL, KALARICKAL HOUSE, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI-5. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. K.S. ROY, S/O. STANZLAOS, KUNNEL VEEDU, WARD NO.3, PARAYAKADU P.O. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR FOR R1 SRI.K.P.JOSE PIOUS FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.748 of 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009 O R D E R -------------- This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Alappuzha in Crl. Appeal No.581 of 2004 confirming conviction and sentence of petitioner entered by learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Cherthala in C.C. No.658 of 2001 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.22,800/- from him on 29.1.2001 and issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 5.2.2001. Dishonour of the cheque for insufficiency of funds is proved by Ext.P2. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P3 to P5. According to the petitioner, he was engaged in conducting Chitty business and in connection with that, he had given a signed blank cheque to one John. He suspects that the said John might have handed over the cheque to respondent No.1 and the latter misused it. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as P.W.1 and testified to his case. Petitioner suggested his case to respondent No.1 which he denied. It is not disputed that the cheque is signed by petitioner and is drawn on the account maintained by him. His case that he handed over a signed blank cheque to one John is not proved or probabilised. Petitioner did not reply to the statutory notice. CRL.R.P. No.748 of 2006 -: 2 :- Courts below found in favour of respondent No.1 that cheque was issued for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. I do not find reason to interfere with the finding entered by the courts below. 2. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and directed him to pay Rs.22,800/- as compensation. A default sentence of simple imprisonment for fifteen days also was provided. Appellate court did not interfere with the sentence. Counsel submits that sentence imposed is excessive and requested two months’ time to deposit compensation. Counsel submits that as per order of this Court petitioner has already deposited Rs.11,400/- in the trial court on 18.9.2006. Having regard to the nature of offence, I am satisfied that simple imprisonment till rising of the court is sufficient in the ends of justice. There is no reason to interfere with the direction for deposit of compensation. Since substantive sentence of imprisonment is modified petitioner has to undergo simple imprisonment for two months in case of failure to deposit compensation. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel petitioner is granted time till 18.9.2009 to deposit compensation. Resultantly, this revision is allowed in part to the following extent: (i) Substantive sentence is modified as CRL.R.P. No.748 of 2006 -: 3 :- simple imprisonment till rising of the court. (ii) Petitioner is granted time till 18.9.2009 to deposit compensation in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court. In case of failure petitioner has to undergo simple imprisonment for two moths. (iii) It is made clear that it shall 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 compensation within the said period. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 19.9.2009 to receive the sentence. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv