IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2411 of 2009()
1. M.A.BABU, MARYTHIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. M.V.SUNDERASAN, MANALEL HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.J.THOMAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :29/07/2009
O R D E R
THOMAS P JOSEPH, J
----------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.2411 of 2009
---------------------------------------
Dated this 29th day of July 2009
ORDER
Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with in view of the order I
am proposing to pass in this revision which is not prejudicial to him.
Heard counsel for petitioner and public prosecutor who took notice for
respondent No.1.
2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned
Sessions Judge, Kottayam in criminal appeal No.170 of 2007 confirming
conviction and sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under
section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to
respondent No.2, petitioner borrowed Rs.45000/- from him and for
repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 18-08-2005.
Dishonour of that cheque for insufficiency of funds is proved by Exts.P2
and P3. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P4
to P6. Respondent No.2 gave evidence as PW1 and testified to his
case. He claimed that he lent the amount to petitioner in May, 2005.
Petitioner, while contenting that he had no transaction with respondent
No.2 had no satisfactory explanation as to how else the cheque signed
by him reached respondent No.2. He has not replied to the statutory
notice served on petitioner. There is no reason to disbelieve the
evidence of respondent No.2. Courts below in the circumstances are
justified in holding in favour of due execution of the cheque.
Crl.R.P.No.2411 of 2009 2
3. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months. There is also a direction for payment
of compensation of Rs.45000/- and default sentence of simple
imprisonment for one month. Appellate court did not interfere with the
sentence, direction for payment of compensation or default sentence.
Learned counsel submits that petitioner has been taken to custody and
is undergoing imprisonment from 24-07-2009 onwards. Petitioner is
now in District Jail, Kollam. Learned counsel requested that substantive
sentence awarded to the petitioner may be modified and that time
may be granted to petitioner to pay the compensation.
4. Having regard to the nature of offence and object of
legislation I am satisfied that period of imprisonment already
undergone by petitioner is sufficient in the ends of justice. There is no
reason to interfere with the direction for payment of compensation.
Petitioner is granted time till 30-12-2009 to pay compensation failing
which he has to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
Resultantly this revision is allowed in part to the following extent:
1. Substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified, confined
and limited to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him.
2. Petitioner is granted time till 30-12-2009 to deposit compensation in
the trial court. In case of failure he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for three months.
Crl.R.P.No.2411 of 2009 3
3. It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance of the direction
for deposit of compensation if petitioner paid compensation to
respondent No.2 through his counsel in the trial court and
respondent No.2 filed a statement in the trial court through his
counsel acknowledging receipt of the amount within the period
aforesaid.
4. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31-12-2009 in case
compensation is not deposited/paid as aforesaid.
THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE
Sbna/