IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 482 of 2009()
1. P. VIVEKANANDAN, S/O. RAMAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. A. ANDIKKUTTY, S/O. CHATHU,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.C.C.ABRAHAM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :29/05/2009
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
CRL. R.P. NO.482 of 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 29th day of May, 2009
O R D E R
————–
Heard counsel on both sides. As agreed by both sides I am not
calling for the records as the revision is not yet admitted and it is
submitted that facts and evidence discussed in the judgments under
challenge could be taken note of for the disposal of this revision.
2. Respondent No.1 alleged that petitioner issued Ext.P1,
cheque for Rs.1,10,000/- for the discharge of the liability in respect of
a property transaction and the amount paid by him as advance sale
consideration. Respondent No.1 agreed to purchase the property of
petitioner and paid Rs.50,000/- by way of advance. Apart from that
respondent No.1 stood as surety for the petitioner for availing loan
from the Kerala State Financial Enterprises. Respondent No.1 had to
pay Rs.40,000/- on behalf of the petitioner. For the discharge of the
liability in favour of respondent No.1, petitioner issued the cheque.
That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and in spite of
notice intimating the dishonour and demanding payment, petitioner
did not pay the amount. Dishonour of the cheque for insufficiency of
funds is proved by Exts.P4 and P5. Issue and service of notice on the
petitioner are proved by Exts.P6 to P8. Respondent No.1 produced
CRL. R.P. No.482 of 2009
-: 2 :-
Exts.P2, P3 and P9 to prove liability of the petitioner. Respondent
No.1 gave evidence as P.W.1 and testified to his case. Contention
raised by the petitioner is that he gave a signed blank cheque while
availing a loan of Rs.6,000/-. Petitioner did not prove or probabilise
that defence. Courts below on a consideration of the evidence on
record found in favour of respondent No.1 in the matter of due
execution of cheque and non-payment of the amount within the
statutory period in spite of dishonour intimation and demand. That
finding is under challenge.
3. Exhibits P2, P3 and P9 prove liability of the petitioner
towards respondent No.1. That petitioner issued the cheque for the
discharge of liability is proved by Ext.P2. Nothing is made out to
disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1. Petitioner has not also replied to
the notice of demand served on him. On going through the judgments
under challenge and hearing counsel I find no illegality, irregularity or
impropriety in the findings entered by the courts below requiring
interference with the conviction.
4. Learned magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo
simple imprisonment for six months. He was directed to pay
Rs.1,10,000/- as compensation and in default of payment to undergo
simple imprisonment for six months. Appellate court modified the
CRL. R.P. No.482 of 2009
-: 3 :-
sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court but petitioner
was directed to pay Rs.1,15,000/- as compensation and in default of
payment to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
Considering the nature of the offence and the amount involved, I do
not find reason to interfere with the sentence, direction for payment
of compensation or the default sentence.
5. Counsel for petitioner requested six months’ time to
deposit the compensation in the trial court. Counsel for respondent
No.1 submitted that cheque was issued in the year 2003 and that
sufficient time has already been taken by the petitioner. Considering
the amount involved and the difficulties expressed by learned counsel
for petitioner, I am inclined to grant four months’ time to the
petitioner to deposit the compensation in the trial court.
Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is
granted four months’ time from this day to deposit the compensation
in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court. Petitioner shall
appear in the trial court on 30.9.2009 to receive the sentence.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv