IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2124 of 2009()
1. P.RAMESHAN, AGED 37 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.RAVEENDRAN, AGED 49 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.AMARESAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :03/07/2009
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.2124 of 2009
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2009.
ORDER
Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am
proposing to pass in this revision and which is not prejudicial to him. Public
Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2.
2. Petitioner faced trial in the court of learned Judicial First Class
Magistrate-I, Hosdurg in C.C.No.1161 of 2006 for offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). Case arose
on a private complaint preferred by respondent No.1 alleging that petitioner
borrowed Rs.2,20,000/- from him and for repayment of that amount issued
Ext.P1, cheque dated 10.7.2006. That cheque was presented for encashment
but it was returned on 12.7.2006 for insufficiency of funds. Dishonour of the
cheque for the said reason is proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Respondent No.1
issued notice to the petitioner. Notice was issued in the residential address as
well as the place of business of petitioner. Issue and service of notice on both
addresses are proved by Exts.P4 to P8. Finding of the courts below regarding
cause of dishonour and service of notice are not challenged before me
3. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and stated about the
transaction leading to the execution of cheque. According to the petitioner, he
was a dealer in amway products. Respondent No.1 advanced money to him for
Crl.R.P.No.2124/2009
2
supply of products. He gave signed blank cheque as security. He supplied the
products to respondent No.1 but the latter returned it claiming that it is of low
quality. Respondent No.1 asked him to return the money advanced.
Respondent No.1 has filled up the cheque for Rs.2,20,000/- and presented the
same.
4. Though petitioner has raised a contention how else the cheque
happened to be in the custody of respondent No.1 that remained a mere
suggestion to respondent No.1 which he denied. There is no evidence to show
that respondent No.1 had placed orders for supply of products or that petitioner
supplied the same to respondent No.1. On the other hand evidence on record is
that petitioner borrowed the amount from respondent No.1 and for repayment of
that amount issued the cheque. Petitioner did not reply to the notice served on
him. Courts below considered the evidence and found in favour of due
execution of the cheque. I do not find reason to interfere with that finding.
5. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple
imprisonment for one year. Petitioner was directed to pay Rs.2,20,000/- as
compensation to respondent No.1 and in default of payment to undergo
simple imprisonment for four months. Appellate court modified substantive
sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court and converted
compensation into fine of Rs.2,20,000/-. Default sentence of imprisonment for
three months was also provided. Having regard to the nature of the offence
and the amount involved there is little reason to interfere with the sentence as
modified by the appellate court, at the instance of the petitioner.
Crl.R.P.No.2124/2009
3
6. Learned counsel for petitioner requested six months’ time to
deposit fine in the trial court. Having regard to the difficulties expressed by the
petitioner and the amount involved I am inclined to grant time to the petitioner
till 30.12.2009 to deposit fine in the trial court.
Resultantly this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till
30.12.2009 to deposit fine in the trial court. Petitioner shall appear in the trial
court on 31.12.2009 to receive the sentence.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.
cks