Kerala High Court
P.C.Thomas vs Ittoop A.M on 20 April, 2012
Author: Thomas P.Joseph
Bench: Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL 2012/31ST CHAITHRA 1934
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 899 of 2012 ()
------------------------------
CRA.459/2006 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY
CC.385/2003 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,TALIPARAMBA
.......
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
P.C.THOMAS, AGED 58 YEARS,
S/O. CHANDI, POOVATHEL HOUSE, UDAYAGIRI P.O.,
ALAKODE AMSOM ARANGAM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.SATHEESH
SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI
SRI.J.ABHILASH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. ITTOOP A.M., AGED 43 YEARS,
ANIMOOTTIL, S/O. MATHAI, PANNIYAL,
KOOTTUMUGHAM P.O., SREEKANDAPURAM,
KANNUR DISTRICT-670 341.
2. STAE OF KERALA,
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 20-04-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No. 899 of 2012
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of April, 2012.
ORDER
Petitioner faced trial in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thaliparamba for offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "the Act")
2. According to the 1st respondent, petitioner issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 07.01.2003 for the discharge of a debt to the tune of `80,000/-, that cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and in spite of dishonour intimation and demand, petitioner did not pay the amount. Learned Magistrate found petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and directed him to pay compensation of `80,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. In appeal, learned Additional Sessions Judge while confirming conviction, modified the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. Hence this revision.
3. Learned counsel contends that evidence of DWs 1 to 4 was not properly appreciated by the courts below. It is also contended that documents produced by the petitioner would improbabilise version of 1st respondent.
4. 1st respondent when examined as PW1, stated that petitioner issued cheque dated 07.01.2003 on 10.09.2002 for the discharge of the debt. Crl.RP No.899/2012 2 Petitioner gave evidence as DW1 and claimed that he had entrusted two signed blank cheques with one Kurian (DW4) in connection with a transaction between the said Kurian and DW2. DW4 returned the cheques to the DW2. DW2 kept it in his shop where from it was lost. DWs 2 and 4 also stated so. DW3 is the manager of the drawee bank.
5. Ext.D2 is the agreement said to be entered into between DWs 2 and 4. Ext.D1 is the cheque book of petitioner, produced by him in the trial court. Ext.D6 is the stop memo said to be issued by petitioner where it is stated that petitioner lost his cheque book. Learned Magistrate observed that if as stated in Ext.D6 the cheque book was lost, petitioner could not have produced the same (Ext.D1) in court. Even as per the version of DWs 2 and 4, DW2 lost the cheque on 10.09.2002 while according to the 1st respondent, petitioner handed over the cheque to him on 10.09.2002. Having regard to the circumstances courts below were not inclined to accept the version of petitioner and found him guilty. I do not find reason to interfer with the conviction of petitioner.
6. There is also no reason to interfere with the substantive sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate as modified by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
7. As regards the direction for payment of compensation and default sentence, learned counsel has requested six months' time to deposit the amount in the trial court. Learned counsel has told me about the financial difficulties experienced by petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances stated, I am inclined to grant three months' time to pay/deposit compensation.
Crl.RP No.899/2012 3
Resultantly this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted three months' time from this day to deposit the amount of compensation in the trial court. It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance with the direction for deposit of compensation if petitioner pays the amount to the 1st respondent through his counsel in the trial court and 1st respondent files a statement in the trial court through his counsel within the time granted hereby, acknowledging receipt of compensation. Petitioner shall appear in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thaliparamba on 23.07.2012 to receive substantive sentence (and the default sentence in case compensation is not paid/deposited as above stated). Warrant of arrest issued to the petitioner will stand in abeyance till 23.07.2012.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.
cks