IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2500 of 2009()
1. RADHA .S, T.C39/1721
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.SATHEENDRAN NAIR,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
For Petitioner :SRI.G.P.SHINOD
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :13/08/2009
O R D E R
THOMAS P JOSEPH, J
----------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.2500 of 2009
---------------------------------------
Dated this 13th day of August 2009
ORDER
Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I
am proposing to pass in this revision which is not prejudicial to him.
Heard counsel for petitioner and public prosecutor who took notice for
respondent No.2.
2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned
Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track No-3), Thiruvananthapuram in
Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2006 confirming conviction but modifying the
sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. According to respondent No.1, petitioner
borrowed Rs.45000/- from him on 17-05-2000 and issued Ext.P1,
cheque dated 22-11-2000 for repayment of that amount. Dishonour of
that cheque for insufficiency of funds is proved by Exts.P2 and P3.
Respondent No.1 claimed that statutory notice was issued and served
on petitioner and in proof produced Exts.P4 to P6. According to the
petitioner, she had no transaction with respondent No.1 and Ext.P1
may be the blank cheque she had given to one Muraleedharan. She
also contended that there was no proper service of notice on her.
3. So far as due execution of the cheque is concerned, there
is the evidence of respondent No.1 as PW1. He stated about the
transaction leading to the execution of the cheque. So far as
Crl.R.P.No.2500 of 2009 2
contention raised by petitioner is concerned, she was not even sure
whether Ext.P1 is the cheque she had allegedly given to
Muraleedharan. She only raised a suspicion. At any rate there is no
evidence or circumstance to prove or probabilise that contention.
Courts below were not impressed by the contention raised by
petitioner. I find no reason to differ.
4. So far as service of notice on petitioner is concerned,
Ext.P6 is the acknowledgment card. It is true that petitioner denied
signing Ext.P6. But, she has not taken steps to show that Ext.P6 did
not contain her signature. She did not summon the postman who is
seen to have delivered the registered notice to her, the addressee.
There is no dispute regarding correctness of the address given on
Exts.P4 and P6. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act provides a
presumption regarding service of notice issued in the correct address
by registered post. That presumption is not rebutted.
5. Though initially learned counsel had expressed a doubt
whether the complaint was filed within the time, learned counsel after
going through the copy of complaint submitted that complaint was
preferred within time. On going through the judgment under challenge
and hearing learned counsel, I find no reason to interfere with the
conviction of petitioner.
6. Sentence on petitioner is to undergo simple imprisonment
till rising of the court. There is also direction for payment of
compensation of Rs.45000/- to respondent No.1 and default sentence
Crl.R.P.No.2500 of 2009 3
of simple imprisonment for three months. Having regard to the nature
of the offence and the amount involved there is no reason to interfere
with the substantive sentence, direction for payment of compensation
or default sentence at the instance of petitioner.
7. Learned counsel has requested that petitioner may be
granted four months’ time to deposit the compensation. Learned
counsel states that petitioner is unable to raise the entire amount
immediately. There is also a request that petitioner may be permitted
to pay compensation directly to respondent No.1. Having regard to the
circumstances stated, I am inclined to allow that request.
Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner
is granted time till 13-12-2009 to deposit compensation in the trial
court. It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance of the
direction for deposit of compensation if petitioner paid 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 the amount within the period aforesaid.
petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 16-12-2009 to receive the
sentence. Execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand
in abeyance till 16-12-2009.
THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE
Sbna/