IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2265 of 2009()
1. MONI P.K., W/O.JAYARAJAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.P.RAMESH, S/O.RAJAN,
... Respondent
2. THE STATE, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
For Petitioner :SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :15/07/2009
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.2265 of 2009
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th 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. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional
Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-I, Manjeri in Crl.Appeal No.100 of 2007 confirming
conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). According to
respondent No.1 on whose complaint the proceeding was initiated, husband of
petitioner owed certain amount to him, cheque issued by the husband was
dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and thereon he filed C.C.No.135 of 1998
against the husband of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Act. In connection with that case husband of the petitioner was arrested by the
police. A settlement followed as per which petitioner offered to pay the amount
and issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 10.9.2004 for Rupees one lakh. Pursuant to
that settlement, respondent No.1 withdrew the case against the husband of
petitioner. He presented the cheque issued by the petitioner but it was
dishonourd for insufficiency of funds and since payment was stopped as proved
by Ext.P2. Statutory notice was served on petitioner as proved by Exts.P3 series
Crl.R.P.No.2265/2009
2
and P4. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and testified to his case.
According to the petitioner, in the mediation following the filing of the case
against her husband it was agreed that Rs.50,000/- is payable to respondent
No.1. Out of that, Rs.40,000/- was paid to respondent No.1 and balance payable
was only Rs.10,000/-. Signed blank cheque given as security has been misused.
3. As regard the transaction leading to the execution of cheque
respondent No.1 has given evidence. It is not disputed that he had instituted
case against the husband of the petitioner for similar offence and pursuant to a
settlement that case was withdrawn. There is also no dispute that as part of that
settlement petitioner has given the cheque to respondent No.1 though
according to her, as security and in signed blank form for the balance sum of
Rs.10,000/- payable. There is no evidence to show that as per the settlement
the amount payable to respondent No.1 was fixed as Rs.50,000/- and
Rs.40,000/- has been paid. Petitioner has not raised this contention when the
statutory notice was served on her. Courts below found that there is no reason
to disbelieve respondent No.1 regarding the transaction and execution of the
cheque. I do not find reason to interfere with that finding.
4. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple
imprisonment for one month. She was directed to pay compensation of Rupees
Crl.R.P.No.2265/2009
3
one lakh to respondent No.1. Default sentence of imprisonment for six months
was also provided. Appellate court while confirming direction for payment of
compensation modified the default sentence as simple imprisonment for three
months and the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the
court. Having regard to the nature of offence and the object of legislation
there is little reason to interfere with the sentence as modified by the appellate
court.
5. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner may be granted six
months’ time to deposit compensation. According to the learned counsel,
petitioner is in financial difficulties and 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.
Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time
till 30.12.2009 to deposit compensation in the trial court. It is made clear that it
will be sufficient compliance of the direction for payment of compensation if
petitioner paid the compensation to respondent No.1 through her counsel in the
trial court and respondent No.1 filed a statement in the trial court through his
counsel acknowledging receipt of compensation within the above said period.
Crl.R.P.No.2265/2009
4
Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31.12.2009 to receive the sentence.
Execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance till
31.12.2009.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.
cks