IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2772 of 2009()
1. P.C.PHILIP, PALAPURACKAL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SAJU K.MATHEW, ROKRIDGE,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :27/08/2009
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P. No. 2772 OF 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 27th day of August, 2009
O R D E R
This revision petition is in challenge of judgment of
learned Sessions Judge(Enquiry Commissioner and Special
Judge) Kottayam iN Crl Appeal No. 491 of 2008 confirming
conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence
punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument
Act(for short “the Act”). According to Respondent No.1,
petitioner borrowed Rs.40,000/- from him in March, 2004 and
issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 15.6.2004 for repayment of that
amount. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of
funds as proved by Ext P2 and P3. Respondent No.1 served
statutory notice on petitioner as proved by Exts. P4 to P6. He
gave evidence as PW1 and testified to his case. Case of
petitioner is that he gave a signed blank cheque to
respondent No.1 to be given to another person as security.
DW1 stated that he saw petitioner giving a signed blank
cheque to respondent No.1. Courts below were not impressed
Crl.R.P. No. 2772 OF 2009 .
: 2 :
by the contention raised by petitioner or the evidence given by
DW1, accepted the evidence of respondent no.1 and found the
petitioner guilty. It is contented that conviction is not legal or
proper.
2. It is not disputed that Ext.P1 contained the
signature of petitioner and that the cheque was drawn on the
account maintained by him. It is also not disputed that
petitioner had handed over the cheque to respondent no.1
though, according to him in signed blank form to be given to
another person as security. Petitioner did not say to whom
that signed blank cheque was intended to be given by
respondent no.1. DW1 in cross examination stated that he
does not know whether anything was written in the cheque
petitionerhad handed over to respondent no.1. A further fact is
to be noted is that petitioner did not respond to the statutory
notice served on him. In these circumstances, Courts below
are justified in holding in favour of due execution of the
cheque. There is little reason to interfere.
3. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo
simple imprisonment for three months. Petitioner was directed
to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- to respondent no.1 and in
Crl.R.P. No. 2772 OF 2009 .
: 3 :
default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for one
month. Appellate Court while confirming direction for payment
of compensation and default sentence modified the substantive
sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court.
Having regard to the nature of the offence and the amount
involved, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence as
modified or, the direction for payment of compensation and
default sentence as confirmed by the appellate court, at the
instance of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel has requested six months’ time to
the petitioner to deposit compensation. It is stated that
petitioner, on account of financial difficulties is unable to raise
the amount immediately. Learned counsel requested that the
petitioner may be permitted to pay compensation directly to
the respondent no.1 Considering the circumstances stated by
the learned counsel and the amount involved, I am inclined to
grant time to the petitioner till 5.1.2010.
Resultantly this revision petition is dismissed. Petitioner
is granted time till 5.1.2010 to deposit the compensation in
the trial court as ordered by the courts below. It is made clear
that it shall be sufficient compliance with the direction for
Crl.R.P. No. 2772 OF 2009 .
: 4 :
deposit of compensation if petitioner paid the compensation to
respondent no.1 through his counsel in the trial court and the
respondent no. 1 filed statement in the trial court through his
counsel acknowledging receipt of compensation within the
aforesaid time. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on
7.1.2010 to receive the sentence. Until then, execution of
warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance.
( THOMAS P. JOSEHP, JUDGE)
jma