IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1682 of 2009()
1. A.P.ABOOBACKER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. T.V.CHANDRAN
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :28/05/2009
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
-----------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No. 1682 of 2009
---------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of May, 2009
O R D E R
Notice to 1st respondent is dispensed with in view of the
order I am proposing to pass in the revision petition. Learned
Public Prosecutor takes notice for 2nd respondent.
According to 1st respondent who is the proprietor of
M/s.Deepa Gold Palace, Kasaragod, petitioner owed Rs.1 Lakh to
him and for the discharge of that liability issued Ext.P1 cheque
dated 20.4.2006, the cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of
funds as proved by Exts.P2 and P3 and in spite of statutory
notice served on the petitioner (proved through Exts.P5 and P6),
he did not pay the amount. 1st respondent gave evidence as PW1
and testified to his case. The contention raised by the petitioner
is that he had not issued any cheque to 1st respondent and no
amount is due from him to the 1st respondent. Courts below
accepted the evidence of 1st respondent and found in favour of
due execution of the cheque. That finding is challenged in this
revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there
Crl.R.P.No.1682 of 2009
2
is no sufficient evidence for due execution of the cheque.
3. It is not disputed and proved as well that Ext.P1
contained the signature of the petitioner and that the cheque was
drawn on his account. In that situation, it was for the petitioner
to explain the circumstances under which according to him, the
signed cheque leaf happened to be in the custody of 1st
respondent. Apart from some suggestion put to the 1st
respondent in the course of evidence, there is no material on
record proving or probabilising those suggestions. Petitioner also
failed to reply to the notice served on him. These circumstances
have been taken into account by the courts below to hold in
favour of due execution of the cheque. I find nothing illegal,
irregular or improper in the finding entered by the courts below
requiring interference in this revision.
4. Learned Magistrate sentenced the petitioner to
undergo simple imprisonment for three months and directed him
to pay Rs.1 Lakh as compensation. In appeal the substantive
sentence was modified as simple imprisonment for 10 days.
Direction for payment of compensation was confirmed.
Crl.R.P.No.1682 of 2009
3
5. So far as the substantive sentence is concerned, I am
satisfied that simple imprisonment till rising of the court is
sufficient in the ends of justice having regard to the nature of the
offence involved and object of legislation. I do not find any
reason to interfere with the direction for payment of
compensation. Counsel requests that petitioner may be granted
four months time to deposit compensation. Considering the
amount involved and the circumstances pleaded by the counsel, I
am inclined to grant three months time to deposit compensation.
6. In the result, this revision is allowed in part in the
following lines.
1) Substantive sentence awarded to the
petitioner is modified to simple imprisonment till rising
of the court.
2) Petitioner is granted three months time to
deposit compensation in the trial court as ordered by
the court below.
3) It is made clear that it will be sufficient
compliance of condition No.2, if petitioner paid the
compensation to 1st respondent through his counsel in
the trial court and 1st respondent files a statement in
that court through his counsel acknowledging receipt of
Crl.R.P.No.1682 of 2009
4
the amount within the said period of three months.
4) Petitioner shall appear before the court
below on 7.9.2009 to receive the sentence.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the
petitioner has already been arrested today by the Kasaragod
Police pursuant to the warrant issued by the trial court, in view of
the dismissal of the appeal. I have by this order modified the
sentence granting three months time to deposit compensation.
Hence the petitioner has to be released from custody.
The Registry is directed to issue direction to the Judicial
First Class Magistrate-II (Additional Munsiff) Kasaragod to release
the petitioner.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
JUDGE.
bkn/-