Thomas P. Joseph, J.

1. Notice to 1st respondent is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in the revision petition. Learned Public Prosecutor takes notice for 2nd respondent.

2. According to 1st respondent who is the proprietor of M/s.Deepa Gold Palace, Kasaragod, petitioner owed Rs. 1 Lakh to him and for the discharge of that liability issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 20.4.2006, the cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Exts.P2 and P3 and in spite of statutory notice served on the petitioner (proved through Exts.P5 and P6), he did not pay the amount. 1st respondent gave evidence as PW1 and testified to his case. The contention raised by the petitioner is that he had not issued any cheque to 1st respondent and no amount is due from him to the 1st respondent. Courts below accepted the evidence of 1st respondent and found in favour of due execution of the cheque. That finding is challenged in this revision. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no sufficient evidence for due execution of the cheque.

3. It is not disputed and proved as well that Ext.P1 contained the signature of the petitioner and that the cheque was drawn on his account. In that situation, it was for the petitioner to explain the circumstances under which according to him, the signed cheque leaf happened to be in the custody of 1st respondent. Apart from some suggestion put to the 1st respondent in the course of evidence, there is no material on record proving or probabilising those suggestions. Petitioner also failed to reply to the notice served on him. These circumstances have been taken into account by the courts below to hold in favour of due execution of the cheque. I find nothing illegal, irregular or improper in the finding entered by the courts below requiring interference in this revision.

4. Learned Magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and directed him to pay Rs. 1 Lakh as compensation. In appeal the substantive sentence was modified as simple imprisonment for 10 days. Direction for payment of compensation was confirmed.

5. So far as the substantive sentence is concerned, I am satisfied that simple imprisonment till rising of the court is sufficient in the ends of justice having regard to the nature of the offence involved and object of legislation. I do not find any reason to interfere with the direction for payment of compensation. Counsel requests that petitioner may be granted four months time to deposit compensation. Considering the amount involved and the circumstances pleaded by the counsel, I am inclined to grant three months time to deposit compensation.

6. In the result, this revision is allowed in part in the following lines.

1) Substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified to simple imprisonment till rising of the court.

2) Petitioner is granted three months time to deposit compensation in the trial court as ordered by the court below.

3) It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance of condition No. 2, if petitioner paid the compensation to 1st respondent through his counsel in the trial court and 1st respondent files a statement in that court through his counsel acknowledging receipt of the amount within the said period of three months.

4) Petitioner shall appear before the court below on 7.9.2009 to receive the sentence.

7. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that the petitioner has already been arrested today by the Kasaragod Police pursuant to the warrant issued by the trial court, in view of the dismissal of the appeal. I have by this order modified the sentence granting three months time to deposit compensation. Hence the petitioner has to be released from custody.

The Registry is directed to issue direction to the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II (Additional Munsiff) Kasaragod to release the petitioner.