IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1649 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.354/2006 of I ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA ST.67/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- K.R.VALSALA,D/O.RAMAN,AGED 52 YRS, PERMANENT LABOURER,DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL FORM, ARIKUZHA.PO. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. SARALA,W/O.NANDANAN,CHENNATTU HOUSE, PUTHUPARIYARAM.PO,CHITTUR, MANAKKADAVU VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHIR JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1649 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009. ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to make and which is not prejudicial to her. Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. 2. According to respondent No.1, herself and the petitioner are employed in Idukki District Agricultural Farm and while so, petitioner borrowed Rs.75,000/- from her on 12.6.2004 undertaking to repay the same within three months. On demand petitioner issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 4.1.2005 in discharge of that liability and on presentation for encashment the cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Ext.P2. In spite of dishonour intimation and demand petitioner did not discharge the liability and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act). Issue and service of notice are proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and testified to her case. Contention raised by the petitioner is that she had borrowed only Rs.18,000/- from respondent No.1 and gave signed blank cheque which was misused. She has been paying the interest on the amount regularly. Petitioner gave evidence in that line as DW1. But, to controvert that version of petitioner, respondent No.1 proved Ext.P6, letter dated 9.4.2005 admittedly issued by the petitioner Crl.R.P.No.1649/2009 2 wherein she requested for four months' time to pay the amount but ofcourse after the filing of the complaint. Based on evidence of respondent No.1 as PW1, Exts.P1 and P6 and the failure of the petitioner to reply to the statutory notice, courts below found that petitioner executed the cheque for discharge of legally enforceable debt/liability and that the presumption under Section 139 of the Act has not been rebutted. If the amount borrowed was only Rs.18,000/- petitioner would not have refrained from replying to the statutory notice where it was claimed that she issued the cheque for Rs.75,000/- and that cheque was dishonoured. It is admitted that the cheque is signed and handed over by the petitioner to respondent No.1. It is drawn on the account maintained by the petitioner. There is no justifiable reason to disbelieve the evidence of the respondent regarding the transaction and execution of the cheque. 3. Learned magistrate directed the petitioner to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation while sentencing her to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Substantive sentence awarded by the learned magistrate was modified by the appellate court to simple imprisonment till rising of the court which requires no interference. Appellate court confirmed the direction issued by the learned magistrate to the petitioner to deposit Rs.80,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. That direction is in accordance with the object of legislation and requires no interference. 4. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted three months' time to deposit compensation in the trial court. Considering the amount involved and the circumstances stated by the learned counsel, petitioner is Crl.R.P.No.1649/2009 3 granted two months' time to deposit compensation in the trial court. Resultantly, this revision petition is dismissed. Petitioner is granted two months' time from this day to deposit compensation in the trial court. It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance with direction for payment of compensation if petitioner paid the compensation to respondent No.1 through her counsel in the trial court and respondent No.1 filed a statement in the trial court through her counsel acknowledging the receipt of the compensation within the aforesaid time. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 30.7.2009 to receive the sentence. Crl.M.A.No.5032 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks