IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2009 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1643 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.834/2006 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CC.110/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- ASOKAN, S/O.ITTAMAN, AREEKKARA HOUSE, ELAVALLY VILLAGE, DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SREEKANTH, S/O.OOTTUMADATHIL SREEDHARAN, NEMENI DESOM, THAIKKAD AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1643 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2009. ORDER Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.1. Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to make and which is not prejudicial to him. 2. This revision is in challenge of concurrent findings entered by the courts below that the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of respondent No.2 for the discharge of liability to the tune of Rupees two lakhs was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and that in spite of dishonour intimation and demand petitioner did not discharge the liability and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act). According to respondent No.2, petitioner borrowed Rupees two lakhs from him and on demanding repayment issued cheque dated 10.5.1998. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to P7. Ext.P1 is the cheque dated 10.5.1998. Dishonour of the cheque for the above stated reason is proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Issue and service of notice are proved by Exts.P4 to P7. Contention raised by the petitioner in the course of cross examination of respondent No.2 is that he had borrowed some amount from one Shine and given signed blank cheque to Shine which was misused. Petitioner did not attempt to prove or probabilise that contention. He did not adduce any Crl.R.P.No.1643/2009 2 evidence. Ext.P6 shows that though intimation was given about the registered notice concerning the dishonour of the cheque, petitioner refused to claim it. That indicated that petitioner was aware of the claim being made by respondent No.2. Nothing is brought out to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.2 as to the transaction and the execution of the cheque. There is nothing on record to show that respondent No.2 got the cheque in the manner suggested by the petitioner. Due execution of the cheque is proved. Petitioner has not rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Act. In these circumstances, courts below are justified in holding that petitioner is guilty of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. 3. 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.2,20,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. That direction is in accordance with the object of legislation and requires no interference. 4. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted four months' time to deposit compensation in the trial court. It is stated that petitioner is not able to raise the sum of Rs.2,20,000/- immediately. Considering the Crl.R.P.No.1643/2009 3 amount involved and the circumstances stated by the learned counsel petitioner is granted three months time to deposit compensation in the trial court. Resultantly, this revision petition is dismissed. Petitioner is granted three months' time from this day to deposit compensation in the trial court. It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance with the direction for payment of compensation if petitioner paid the compensation to respondent No.2 through his counsel in the trial court and respondent No.2 filed a statement in the trial court through his counsel acknowledging the receipt of the compensation within the aforesaid time. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 7.9.2009 to receive the sentence. Crl.M.A.No.5614 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks