IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 557 of 2007(D)
1. HUSSAIN, S/O.KUNHI MUHAMMED MASTER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. GANGADHARAN, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.D.ROBINSON
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated :07/03/2007
O R D E R
K.R.UDAYABHANU, J
---------------------------------------------
CRL.R.P.No.557 of 2007
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of March, 2007
ORDER
Revision petitioner stands convicted for the offence under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced, as
modified by the appellate court, to imprisonment till the rising of
the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.40,000/- vide Section
357(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure and in default, to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
2. The findings are concurrent. The contentions of the
revision petitioner is that he was forcibly taken to the local office
of the C.M.P., a political party and that he was compelled to
execute two cheques for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each. According
to him, he had filed a complaint before the local police station
and subsequently also filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate. The evidence adduced in support of the above
contention is the testimony of DW1, the accused himself and Ext.
D1 refer notice. The court below have found that the above
evidence is hardly sufficient to rebut the statutory presumptions.
CRRP557/2007 -2-
He had not sent reply to the lawyer notice received. He has not
summoned the documents from the police station wherein he has
lodged a complaint. He has not summoned or examined any
witnesses in support of his version. According to him, the
cheques were got executed by one Azeez. He has not taken any
steps to summon the above Azeez. In the light of the evidence
before the court below as discussed in the judgments of the
courts below, I find that there is no scope for interference. In
the circumstances, revision petition is liable to be dismissed at
the threshold.
3. All the same, considering the plea of the counsel for
the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner is granted six
months’ time from today onwards to deposit the amount of
compensation. He shall appear before J.F.C.M., Koilandy on
6.9.2007 to receive the sentence.
The criminal revision petition is disposed of as above.
K.R.UDAYABHANU,
JUDGE
csl