IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2380 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.137/2008 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK COURT NO.II (ADHOC), THRISSUR CC.54/2007 & 55/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S):/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------- K.R.SATHEESH, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. RAMAN, KOTTAKATH HOUSE, PROPRIETOR, THEERTHA JEWELLERY, CHENDRAPPINNI DESOM, CHENDRAPPINNI VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.JAGAN GEORGE SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD SRI.P.G.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: --------------- 1. N.K.VINODAN, S/O. KUNJIVELAYI, NANDILATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHENDRAPPINNI DESOM, CHENDRAPPINNI VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2380 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of July, 2009. ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in this revision which is not prejudicial to him. Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. Heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor. 2. Petitioner faced trial in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodungallur C.C.Nos.54 of 2007 and 55 of 2007, both for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act). According to respondent No.1, petitioner owed Rs.4,45,000/- to him and in partial discharge of that liability issued Exts.P1 and P6, cheques dated 26.10.2006 for Rupees one lakh each. Dishonour of those cheques for insufficiency of funds is proved by Exts.P2 and P7. Issue and service of statutory notice on petitioner are proved by Exts.P3 to P5 and Exts.P8 to P10. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and spoke to his case. He was not cross examined. Petitioner did not also reply to the statutory notice served on him. Learned magistrate found petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.2,25,000/- for payment to respondent No.1 as compensation and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Petitioner preferred Crl.R.P.No.2380/2009 2 a single appeal against the common judgment. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II (Adhoc), Thrissur entertained the appeal and after hearing both sides allowed the same in part to the extent that the substantive sentence was modified as simple imprisonment for one day. The direction for payment of compensation and default sentence were confirmed. In challenge of that judgment petitioner has come up in revision. I am not going into the question whether a single appeal and revision are maintainable since learned magistrate has directed to deposit a consolidated sum of Rs.2,25,000/- taking into account both the cheques and that direction has been confirmed by the appellate court. 3. Though it is contended by learned counsel that due execution of the cheque is not proved, I do not find reason to hold so particularly as respondent No.1 (PW1) was not cross examined and there was no reply to the statutory notice. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.1 regarding the transaction and execution of cheque. Conviction therefore does not require interference. Crl.R.P.No.2380/2009 3 4. So far as substantive sentence is concerned, considering the nature of offence and object of legislation, I am inclined to think 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 payment of compensation or the default sentence at the instance of petitioner. 5. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted six months' time to deposit compensation since petitioner is facing financial difficulties and is involved in other similar cases. In the circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined to grant time till 30.12.2009 to the petitioner to deposit compensation in the trial court. In case of non-payment, petitioner has to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Resultantly, this revision is allowed in part to the following extent: i. Substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner in both the cases is modified as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. ii. Petitioner is granted time till 30.12.2009 to deposit compensation in the trial court. In case of failure he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. iii. It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance with 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 Crl.R.P.No.2380/2009 4 filed a statement in the trial court through his counsel acknowledging receipt of the compensation within the above said time. 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. cks