IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2247 of 2009()
1. K.J.JANCE,KALAPPURACKAL HOUSE,MANIPPARA.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M.K.GIREESH,S/O.NARAYANAN,PROPRIETOR,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
For Petitioner :SRI.V.V.ASOKAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :13/07/2009
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
CRL. R.P. NO.2247 of 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 13th day of July, 2009
O R D E R
————–
Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I
propose to pass 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, Mattannur in C.C. No.305 of 1998 for offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Learned magistrate found petitioner guilty and sentenced him to
undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Petitioner was directed
to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/-. No default sentence was
provided. Appellate court while confirming conviction modified the
substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court
and directed payment of compensation of Rs.80,000/- with a default
sentence of simple imprisonment for one month.
3. According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed
Rs.75,000/- from him on 20.9.1997 and for repayment of that amount
issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 20.11.1997. That cheque was
dishonoured for insufficiency of funds which is proved by Exts.P2 and
P3. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 to P6.
CRL. R.P. No.2247 of 2009
-: 2 :-
Petitioner contended that he had no transaction with respondent No.1.
It is contended that he had a transaction with the brother of
respondent No.1 and a signed blank cheque was given to him as
security and that cheque has been misused. Petitioner did not adduce
evidence or bring out circumstances proving or probabilising that
contention. He did not reply to the notice served on him. There is no
reason to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.1 regarding the
transaction and due execution of the cheque. Courts below
considered the evidence and found in favour of due execution of the
cheque. There is no reason to interfere with the said finding.
Substantive sentence as modified by the appellate court and direction
for payment of compensation with default sentence also does not
require interference at the instance of petitioner.
4. Counsel for petitioner requested six months’ time to
deposit the compensation. Counsel submits that petitioner is unable
to raise the amount immediately. Considering the circumstances
stated by learned counsel I am inclined to grant time till 30.12.2009
to the petitioner to deposit compensation in the trial court as ordered
by the appellate court.
Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is
CRL. R.P. No.2247 of 2009
-: 3 :-
granted time till 30.12.2009 to deposit the compensation in the trial
court as ordered by the appellate court.
Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31.12.2009 to receive
the sentence. Until then execution of warrant against petitioner will be
kept in abeyance.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv