IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2182 of 2009()
1. REJENDRAN, S/O RAJAN.V,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RANGARAJAN, S/O NATARAJAN,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
For Respondent : No Appearance
Dated :07/07/2009
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
CRL. R.P. NO.2182 of 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 7th day of July, 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 this revision which is not prejudicial to him.
Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2.
2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned
Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Palakkad in Crl.Appeal No.291 of
2007 confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act. Case arose on a complaint preferred by respondent No.1. His
case is that petitioner borrowed Rs.50,000/- from him and for
repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 6.9.2005. That
cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by
Exts.P2 and P3. Respondent No.1 served notice on petitioner
intimating dishonour and demanding payment as proved by Exts.P4 to
P6. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as P.W.1 and stated to his case.
3. Contention raised in this revision is that due execution of
the cheque is not proved. But it is seen that respondent No.1 (P.W1)
was not cross-examined on behalf of petitioner in spite of giving
sufficient time. The unchallenged version of respondent No.1 is that
CRL. R.P. No.2182 of 2009
-: 2 :-
petitioner borrowed Rs.50,000/- and for repayment of that amount
issued Ext.P1, cheque. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence
of P.W1. Courts below are therefore justified in holding that petitioner
issued Ext.P1, cheque for the discharge of a legally enforceable
debt/liability.
4. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple
imprisonment for four months. Petitioner was directed to deposit
Rs.50,000/- as compensation. In default of payment sentence of
simple imprisonment for two months also was provided. Appellate
court modified the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till
rising of the court while retaining direction for payment of
compensation and the default sentence. There is no reason to
interfere with the sentence as modified by the appellate court,
direction for payment of compensation or default sentence.
5. Counsel requested four months’ time to deposit
compensation. Counsel submits that petitioner is unable to raise the
amount immediately. Having regard to the circumstances stated by
learned counsel I am inclined to grant four months’ time to the
petitioner to deposit compensation in the trial court.
Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is
CRL. R.P. No.2182 of 2009
-: 3 :-
granted four months’ time from this day to deposit compensation in
the trial court. It is made clear that it shall be sufficient compliance
with the direction for deposit of compensation if petitioner paid the
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 the compensation within the said
period months.
Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 9.11.2009 to receive
the sentence. Until then warrant if any against petitioner will be kept
in abeyance.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv