IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2807 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.175/2006 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-IV, TRIVANDRUM ST.318/2005 of JFCM-VII THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR, S/O.CHELLAPPAN NAIR, RAJEEVAM, T.C.11/1599, PAROTTUKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------- 1. P.SUBHA, W/O.SURENDRAN, S.G.NILAYAM, KUDAPPANAKUNNU VILLAGE, PEROORKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.C.S. HRITIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No. 2807 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of August, 2009 O R D E R This revision in challenge of judgment of learned Additional sessions Judge, Fast TrackNo.IV, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.Appeal No.175/2007 confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act(for short, “the Act”). According to Respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs. 1,25,000/- from him on 1.6.2001 and for repayment of that amount issued cheques dated 15.04.2002 for Rs.50,000/- and dated 11.3.2002 for Rs.75,000/-. The subject matter of this case is cheque dated 15.4.2002 for Rs.50,000/- which is marked as Ext.P1. Dishonour of that cheque for insufficiency of funds is proved by Ext.P2. Respondent no.1 gave notice to the petitioner intimating dishonour and demanding payment of the amount. That notice was served on the petitioner as proved by Exts.P3 Crl.R.P. No. 2807 OF 2009 : 2 : to P5. Respondent 1 gave evidence as PW1. Her husband was examined as PW2. The case of the petitioner is that he had some transaction with the husband of respondent no.1 (PW2) and gave two signed blank cheques to PW2 on behalf of the society. PW2 returned one cheque when Rs.50,000/- was paid to him. PW2 told him that the second cheque is lost from his custody. Petitioner claimed that he had no connection with respondent No.1. He produced Ext.D1 which is the notice concerning cheque for Rs.75,000/- The courts below did not accept the contention of the petitioner and found him guilty. 2. Respondent No.1 as PW1 and her husband as PW2 stated that petitioner borrowed the amount from respondent No.1(PW1) . According to them it was for the purpose of the petitioner taking delivery of his tourist bust after body building that petitioner borrowed the amount. Petitioner however as a different case as to how else the cheque reached respondent No.1. But he did not adduce Crl.R.P. No. 2807 OF 2009 : 3 : evidence or brought circumstances to prove or probabilise the same. Ext.D1 notice is not of any consequence since it concerned cheque dated 11.3.2002 for Rs.75,000/- which according to respondent no.1 was issued in partial discharge of the liability of Rs.1,25,000/- . Petitioner has also not replied to the statutory notice served on him. Courts below after consideration of the evidence found in favour of due execution of the cheque. On going through the judgments under challenge and hearing the counsel I do not find reason to interfere with concurrent finding entered by the courts below. Conviction of the petitioner therefore does not require interference. Learned Magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and directed payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- and provided default sentence of imprisonment of one month. Appellate court while confirming direction for payment of compensation and default sentence modified the substantive sentence as imprisonment till the raising of the court. Having regard to Crl.R.P. No. 2807 OF 2009 : 4 : the nature of the offence I find no reason to interfere with the sentence as modified or the direction for payment of compensation and default sentence as confirmed by the appellate court at the interest of justice. 3. Learned counsel requested that the petitioner may be granted six months time to deposit compensation in the trial court. It is stated that on account of financial difficulties petitioner is unable to raise the amount immediately. It is also requested that the petitioner may be permitted to pay the amount directly to Respondent no.1. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined to grant time to the petitioner till 15.1.2010 to deposit the compensation. Notice to respondent no.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I proposed to pass in this revision which is not prejudiced to her. Resultantly this revision petition failed and it is accordingly dismissed. But, Crl.R.P. No. 2807 OF 2009 : 5 : 1. Petitioner is granted time till 15.1.2010 to deposit compensation in the trial court as ordered by the courts below. 2. It is directed that it will be sufficient compliance with 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 that court through her counsel acknowledging receipt of compensation within the aforesaid time. 3. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 18.1.2010. 4. Until then execution of warrant if any, against the petitioner will stand in abeyance. ( THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) jma