IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2248 OF 2009() ---------------------------------------------- CRA.746/2005 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-2), THRISSUR ST.591/2009 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): /APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------- REMANI RATNAPALAN, CHERAMPARAMBIL RATNAPALAN, IRINJALAKUDA DESOM, MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RANJITH XAVIER RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MAHATMA CHITTIES (P) LTD.,MADAYIKONAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, A.PADMANABHAN, "SASTHA KRIPA", ARATTUPUZHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2248 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of July, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Petitioner stands convicted for offence punishable under 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. She was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Petitioner was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.28,136/- and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for ten days. Appellate court confirmed conviction but modified the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court and directed payment of fine of Rs.28136/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for forty days. 2. According to respondent No.1 petitioner subscribed to a Kuri run by it, prized the same for Rs.28,136/-, received the amount and defaulted future installments. Petitioner issued Ext.P1, cheque for the said sum of Rs.28,136/-. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Exts.P2, P3 and P10. P.W.1 gave evidence on behalf of respondent No.1. Exhibit P8 is the certified copy of the minutes and Ext.P9, application submitted by petitioner with respondent No.1. According to petitioner Rs.28,136/- is not due to respondent No.1. Petitioner produced Ext.D1, pass book to prove her case. Courts below found that Ext.D1 showed only payment of CRL. R.P. No.2248 of 2009 -: 2 :- amount upto the 4th installment and that too, irregularly. It is also found that payment as shown in Ext.D1 did not affect the claim of respondent No.1 for Rs.28,136/- payable as per Ext.P1. Exhibit P6 shows that notice issued to petitioner was returned as unclaimed. Petitioner was aware of the claim being made on behalf of respondent No.1. Courts below considered the evidence and found in favour of due execution of the cheque. There is no reason to interfere with that finding. There is also no reason to interfere with the sentence as modified by the appellate court at the instance of petitioner. 3. Counsel for petitioner requested four months’ time to deposit the fine. Counsel submits that petitioner is unable to raise the amount immediately. Having regard to the circumstances stated by learned counsel concerning financial difficulty of petitioner and the amount involved petitioner is granted time till 30.12.2009 to deposit the fine. Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 30.12.2009 to deposit the fine in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31.12.2009 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any against petitioner will stand in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv