IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2009 / 6TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2800 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.512/2006 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.1426/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------- K.RAVEENDRAN, S/O.KESAVAN, ALUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, AVANOOR MURI, NEDUVATHOOR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J SAM RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------- 1. K.DIVAKARAN NAIR, NEDUMPACHA PUTHEN VEEDU, (DIVYALAYAM), ELAMADU MURI, DO VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2800 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 28th day of August 2009 ORDER This revision is in challenge of Judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam in Criminal Appeal No.512 of 2006 confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner faced trial in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-2, Kollam in C.C.No.1426 of 2005. According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.35,000/- from him and for its repayment issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 21-11-1999. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Ext.P2. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P3 to P5. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1. According to the petitioner, he had no transaction with respondent No.1 and instead, in connection with the transaction he had with one Suresh handed over the cheque to the said Suresh and that cheque has been misused. Petitioner did not adduce any evidence or bring out circumstance to prove or probabilise that contention. He has not replied to the statutory notice served on him. On the other hand respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 about the transaction leading to execution of the cheque. Courts below found that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 as to due execution of the cheque. On going through the judgment and hearing Crl.R.P.No.2800 of 2009 2 learned counsel I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings entered by the courts below regarding execution of the cheque and failure of petitioner to rebut the presumption under section 139 of the Act. Conviction therefore does not require interference. 2. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and directed payment of compensation of Rs.60,000/- taking into account the principal amount and interest payable @10% per annum. Default sentence of imprisonment for two months was also provided. Appellate court modified the sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court and compensation payable as Rs.50,000/- while retaining the default sentence. Having regard to the nature of the offence and the amount involved I do not find reason to interfere with the sentence and the amount of compensation as modified by the appellate court or, the default sentence imposed, at the instance of petitioner. 3. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted five months' time to deposit compensation. It is stated that petitioner is not able to raise the amount immediately on account of financial difficulties. A further request is that petitioner may be permitted to pay compensation directly to respondent No.1. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined to grant time till 28-12-2009 to deposit/pay compensation. Crl.R.P.No.2800 of 2009 3 Resultantly this revision petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 28-12-2009 to deposit compensation as ordered by the appellate court. It is made clear that it will 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 period aforesaid. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 30-12-2009 to receive the sentence. Execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance till 30-12-2009. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/