IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH DECEMBER 2011 / 6TH POUSHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3087 of 2011 ------------------------------------- CRA.83/2010 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KALPETTA CC.408/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, MANANTHAVADY .................... REVN. PETITIONER / APPELLANT / ACCUSED : - --------------------------------------------------------------------- MONICA, D/O AUGUSTHY, VADAKKEVEETTIL HOUSE, VIMALANAGAR POST, TAVINJAL VILLAGE, MANATHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNA PRASAD. S RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS / COMPLAINANT & STATE : - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. T.J. THOMAS, S/O JOSEPH THEKKETHIL VEEDU, CHETTAPPALAM, VEMOM POST, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT - 670 645. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. N. SURESH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: DMR/- N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------ Crl. R.P. No: 3087 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of December, 2011 O R D E R The petitioner was convicted by the learned Magistrate for offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay Rs.75,000/- as compensation. In appeal his sentence was modified, directing her to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay Rs.75,000/- as compensation. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued at length. The learned counsel submits that the trial Court and the appellate court have not appreciated the evidence adduced on the side of the defence and also the improbability of the case of the prosecution. Hence the learned counsel submits that the verdict of conviction has to be set aside. It is also argued that the accused had Crl. R.P. No: 3087 OF 2011 -2- property transaction with the complainant's daughter's husband and at that time Rs.10,000/- was borrowed and a signed blank cheque leaf was given which was subsequently filled up by the complainant to file the complaint. 3. The learned Magistrate has elaborately dealt with the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence. The appellate court , after re-appreciation, concurred with the findings entered by the trial Court. Though the arguments advanced by the learned counsel is attractive. I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding. No modification is required regarding the sentence as well. Hence this Criminal R.P. is dismissed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a sum of Rs.20,000/- was already given during the pendency of appeal and that sufficient time may be granted to pay the balance amount. 5. Hence considering all the aspects, the petitioner Crl. R.P. No: 3087 OF 2011 -3- will surrender before the learned Magistrate within two weeks from today and will deposit Rs.15,000/- on that day and she will undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court. She will also file an affidavit undertaking that the balance amount of Rs.40,000/- will be remitted in two equal monthly instalments thereafter. If the petitioner fails to honour the undertaking the learned Magistrate will proceed to/execute the sentence. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE jjj