IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1659 of 2009()
1. PRMJI PURUSHOTHAMAN, OFFICER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. GEORGE JOSEPH, THEKKANATT HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.JINU JOSEPH
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :27/05/2009
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
CRL. R.P. NO.1659 of 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009
O R D E R
————–
Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. Notice to
respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing
to pass in the revision which will not be prejudicial to respondent
No.1.
2. According to respondent No.1, petitioner availed a loan of
Rs.50,000/- from him and for discharge of that liability issued Ext.P1,
cheque dated 17.10.2006 for the said amount. Cheque was
dishonoured as “account closed/transferred to Vailathoor”.
Respondent No.1 issued notice to the petitioner intimating dishonour
and demanding payment. Notice was served on petitioner but he
neither replied nor complied with the demand. Hence the complaint.
Respondent No.1 gave evidence as P.W.1 and spoke to his case.
Dishonour of the cheque for the above reason is proved by respondent
No.1. Exhibits P3 and P5 show issue and service of notice on the
petitioner. According to the petitioner, he had borrowed only
Rs.25,000/- and at that time had given a signed blank cheque which
was misused. Petitioner did not adduce any evidence in that line. Plea
raised by the petitioner is neither proved nor probabilised. He did not
CRL. R.P. No.1659 of 2009
-: 2 :-
also reply to the statutory notice served on him. In these
circumstances there is little reason to interfere with the concurrent
findings entered by the courts below as to the due execution of the
cheque and failure of the petitioner to rebut the presumption under
Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Learned magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo
simple imprisonment for three months while directing payment of
Rs.50,000/- as compensation. Appellate court confirmed the
conviction and sentence. In the facts and circumstances of the case,
nature of the offence and the amount involved, I am satisfied that
simple imprisonment till rising of the court will be sufficient in the
ends of justice. There is no reason to interfere with the direction for
payment of compensation.
4. At this stage counsel for petitioner requested four months’
time to deposit the amount. Having regarding to the nature of the
offence, the amount involved and object of legislation I am inclined to
grant three months’ time from this day to deposit the compensation.
Resultantly, this revision is allowed in part in the following lines:
(i) Substantive sentence awarded to
CRL. R.P. No.1659 of 2009
-: 3 :-
the petitioner is modified as simple
imprisonment till rising of the court.
(ii) Petitioner is directed to deposit
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) for
payment to respondent No.1 as compensation
in the trial court within three months from this
day.
(iii) It is made clear that it shall be
sufficient compliance condition (ii) if petitioner
paid the 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 the compensation within the said
period three months.
Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 28.8.2009 to receive
the sentence.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv