IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2009 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 482 OF 2009() ------------------------------------------ CRA.607/2006 OF SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKOE ST.944/2003 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------- P. VIVEKANANDAN, S/O. RAMAN, POOKKATTU HUOSE, KOMBARAKUNNUPARAMBU, MAKKADA AMSOM, P.O. KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN SMT.N.S.REHNA RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. A. ANDIKKUTTY, S/O. CHATHU, ELAYADATH HOUSE, P.O. CHELANNUR,THAMARASSERY AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.C.C.ABRAHAM FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.482 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of May, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Heard counsel on both sides. As agreed by both sides I am not calling for the records as the revision is not yet admitted and it is submitted that facts and evidence discussed in the judgments under challenge could be taken note of for the disposal of this revision. 2. Respondent No.1 alleged that petitioner issued Ext.P1, cheque for Rs.1,10,000/- for the discharge of the liability in respect of a property transaction and the amount paid by him as advance sale consideration. Respondent No.1 agreed to purchase the property of petitioner and paid Rs.50,000/- by way of advance. Apart from that respondent No.1 stood as surety for the petitioner for availing loan from the Kerala State Financial Enterprises. Respondent No.1 had to pay Rs.40,000/- on behalf of the petitioner. For the discharge of the liability in favour of respondent No.1, petitioner issued the cheque. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and in spite of notice intimating the dishonour and demanding payment, petitioner did not pay the amount. Dishonour of the cheque for insufficiency of funds is proved by Exts.P4 and P5. Issue and service of notice on the petitioner are proved by Exts.P6 to P8. Respondent No.1 produced CRL. R.P. No.482 of 2009 -: 2 :- Exts.P2, P3 and P9 to prove liability of the petitioner. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as P.W.1 and testified to his case. Contention raised by the petitioner is that he gave a signed blank cheque while availing a loan of Rs.6,000/-. Petitioner did not prove or probabilise that defence. Courts below on a consideration of the evidence on record found in favour of respondent No.1 in the matter of due execution of cheque and non-payment of the amount within the statutory period in spite of dishonour intimation and demand. That finding is under challenge. 3. Exhibits P2, P3 and P9 prove liability of the petitioner towards respondent No.1. That petitioner issued the cheque for the discharge of liability is proved by Ext.P2. Nothing is made out to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1. Petitioner has not also replied to the notice of demand served on him. On going through the judgments under challenge and hearing counsel I find no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the findings entered by the courts below requiring interference with the conviction. 4. Learned magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He was directed to pay Rs.1,10,000/- as compensation and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Appellate court modified the CRL. R.P. No.482 of 2009 -: 3 :- sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court but petitioner was directed to pay Rs.1,15,000/- as compensation and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Considering the nature of the offence and the amount involved, I do not find reason to interfere with the sentence, direction for payment of compensation or the default sentence. 5. Counsel for petitioner requested six months' time to deposit the compensation in the trial court. Counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that cheque was issued in the year 2003 and that sufficient time has already been taken by the petitioner. Considering the amount involved and the difficulties expressed by learned counsel for petitioner, I am inclined to grant four months' time to the petitioner to deposit the compensation in the trial court. Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted four months' time from this day to deposit the compensation in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 30.9.2009 to receive the sentence. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv