IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 4211 of 2006()
1. P.G. PRABHAKARAN, S/O.GOVINDAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.L. MATHEW, PERUMPALATHUSSERIL (H)
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.TOMY SEBASTIAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :06/12/2006
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J
———————————————
Crl.R.P.No. 4211 of 2006
———————————————
Dated this the 6th day of December, 2006
O
RDER
The petitioner was found guilty for the offence under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and he was
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four
months and was directed to pay a compensation of Rs.60,000/- to
the complainant and in default of payment of compensation to
undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The petitioner
challenged the conviction and sentence in appeal. The appellate
court confirmed the conviction, but modified and reduced the
sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court. The
direction to pay compensation was confirmed. However, the
default sentence was enhanced to three months.
2. The case of the complainant is that the accused
borrowed Rs.60,000/- from him and Ext. P1 cheque was issued in
discharge of that debt. On presentation of the cheque, it was
dishonoured on the ground of ‘insufficiency of funds’ in the
account of the accused. The accused conceded that Ext.P1
cheque was written on a cheque leaf in respect of the account
CRRP 4211/2006 2
maintained by him. The signature in Ext.P1 cheque is also
admitted. A suggestion was made to PW1 that a blank signed
cheque was issued to the complainant, when the accused
received some amount from him. Ext.P4 notice was issued to
the accused. He received the notice but he did not send any
reply. No defence evidence was also adduced by the accused.
The trial court held that the presumption under Section 139 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act is available in favour of the
complainant and that the accused/petitioner has not rebutted the
presumption. The appellate court considered the evidence in
detail and concurred with the view taken by the trial court. The
appellate court, however, reduced the sentence following the
decision in Anilkumar Vs. Shammy (2002 (3) KLT 852).
3. No grounds are made out for interference in revision
under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and there
is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the judgments
impugned.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
a reasonable time may be granted to the petitioner to pay the
compensation amount. Taking into account the facts and
CRRP 4211/2006 3
circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant three months’
time to the petitioner to pay the compensation amount.
In the result, this Crl.R.P. is dismissed and the conviction
and sentence are confirmed. However, three months’ time is
granted to the petitioner to pay the compensation amount of
Rs.60,000/-. Execution of the default sentence shall be kept in
abeyance for three months.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl
CRRP 4211/2006 4
