IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2009 / 30TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2725 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.498/2005 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR ST.936/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- K.G.LOHIDAKSHAN, SECURITY STAFF, (AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN, KUMBALATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE), STATE BANK OF TRAVENCORE, IRINJALAKKUDA. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.SAJI ROSHAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------ 1. A.T.SUNNY, S/O.ALAPPADAN THOMAS, CHEMMANDA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2725 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of August, 2009. ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in the revision which is not prejudicial to him. Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. 2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Thrissur in Cr.Appeal No.498 of 2005 confirming conviction and sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). According to respondent No.1, petitioner issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 14.8.1999 for Rs.24,000/- for discharge of a liability. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and testified to his case. Petitioner had no definite case when questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as to the transaction or alleged execution of the cheque. Nor did he deny execution of the cheque but it was suggested to respondent No.1 that the complaint is preferred on behalf of one Davis. Respondent No.1 denied that suggestion. Courts below found in favour of due execution of the cheque. It is contended that concurrent finding is not correct. 3. It is not disputed that Ext.P1, cheque contained signature of Crl.R.P.No.2725/2009 2 petitioner and is drawn on the account maintained by him. Suggestion to respondent No.1 that complaint is filed on behalf of Davis is denied by him. There is no circumstance or evidence to hold that the transaction was between petitioner and Davis. There is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.1. I do not find reason to interfere with the finding of learned magistrate as confirmed by the appellate court. 4. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court. There was a direction for payment of compensation of Rs.25,000/- to respondent No.1 and default sentence of imprisonment for twenty (20) days. Appellate court did not interfere with the sentence. Having regard to the nature of offence and the amount involved I find no reason to interfere with the sentence, direction for payment of compensation or default sentence at the instance of petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner requested that petitioner may be granted six months’ time to deposit compensation in the trial court. It is stated that petitioner is unable to raise the amount immediately on account of financial difficulties. It is also requested that petitioner may be permitted to pay compensation to respondent No.1 directly. Having regard to the circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined to grant time to the petitioner till 26.11.2009 to deposit/pay compensation. Resultantly this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 26.11.2009 to deposit compensation in the trial court as ordered by that court. It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance of the direction Crl.R.P.No.2725/2009 3 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 above said period. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 28.11.2009 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks