IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2503 of 2009()
1. P.MUHAMMED, S/O.KUNHIMUHAMMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M.K.VINOJ, S/O.KARUNAKARAN,
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :05/08/2009
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
CRL. R.P. NO.2503 of 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 5th day of August, 2009
O R D E R
————–
Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I
am proposing to pass in the revision which is not prejudicial to him.
Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2.
2. Concurrent finding entered by the courts below as to due
execution of the cheque for discharge of a legally enforceable
debt/liability is under challenge in this revision. According to
respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.70,000/- from him on
25.9.2005 and issued Ext.P1, cheque. That cheque was dishonoured
as account was closed. Cause of dishonour is not under challenge and
proved by Exts.P2, P3 and P7. Service of statutory notice on
petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Respondent No.1 gave evidence
as P.W1. According to the petitioner, respondent No.1 was an
employee in his workshop and was dismissed from service. While so
respondent No.1 came to his workshop and quarreled with him
demanding compensation which he refused. To wreck vengeance a
false complaint is preferred against him. Petitioner examined D.W.1 in
proof of his case. It is contended by learned counsel that finding
regarding execution of cheque is not correct. Respondent No.1
CRL. R.P. No.2503 of 2009
-: 2 :-
produced his pass book to show that on 31.5.2005 he had availed a
loan of Rs.1,00,000/-. According to respondent No.1 it is from the said
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- that on 25.9.2005 he advanced Rs.70,000/- to
petitioner. D.W.1 stated that respondent No.1 was working in the
workshop of petitioner and while so in July, 2005 respondent No.1 was
expelled from service. One day in July, 2005 respondent No.1 came to
the workshop of petitioner and quarreled with the latter demanding
compensation. When petitioner refused, respondent No.1 left the
place threatening petitioner that he will teach him a lesson. It came
out in the evidence of D.W.1 that though he claimed to be residing in
the neighborhood of the workshop he is actually residing 1= kms
away. Learned magistrate observed that if that be so D.W.1 had no
occasion to witness the alleged incident spoken by him. It is also not
explained by the petitioner how the signed blank cheque leaf
happened to be in the custody of respondent No.1. Petitioner did not
reply to the statutory notice. It is in these circumstances courts
below found in favour of due execution of the cheque. I have no
reason to disagree with that finding.
3. Learned Sessions Judge while confirming the direction for
payment of compensation and default sentence modified the
substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court.
There is no reason to interfere with the sentence as modified,
direction for payment of compensation or the default sentence as
CRL. R.P. No.2503 of 2009
-: 3 :-
confirmed by the appellate court.
4. Learned counsel requested six months’ time for petitioner
to deposit compensation. It is submitted that petitioner is unable to
raise the amount immediately. It is also requested that petitioner may
be permitted to pay the compensation directly to respondent No.1.
Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined
to grant time till 30.12.2009 to deposit compensation.
Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner
is granted time till 30.12.2009 to deposit compensation in the trial
court as ordered by that court. It is made clear that it shall be
sufficient compliance with the direction for deposit of compensation
if petitioner paid compensation to respondent No.1 through his
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 said period.
Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31.12.2009 to receive
the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any against petitioner
will remain in abeyance.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv