IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 37 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRA.183/2005 of IST ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CC.460/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------ USHARATHNAM,MANAGER,VIDYAPOSHNI U.P SCHOOL,W/O.GUNAVARDHANAN,CHALIPPATT HOUSE, P.O THRITHALLUR,VATANAPPILLY.\ BY ADV. SRI.U.O.JOSE RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------- 1. SHEEJA JAYATHILAKAN,KAREEPADATH HOUSE, ENGANDIYOOR,CHAVAKKAD TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2008 ALONG WITH CRRP.NO.38 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P.Nos.37 & 38 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of January, 2008 O R D E R These revision petitions are being taken up together for disposal as identical contentions arise for consideration in these 2 cases. 2. The petitioner/accused had admittedly issued 2 cheques for Rs.1 lakh dated 30.12.01 and Rs.50,000/- dated 19.11.2001 to the common complainant. This payment was allegedly made to enable the complainant to secure employment in a school, of which the petitioner is the manager. Payment was received, but employment was not provided. Demand was made for return of the amount. Accordingly these 2 cheques were issued. The cheques were dishonoured when they were presented for encashment. Following the statutory time table, separate complaints were made by the common complainant. Separate trials were held. Various contentions were raised. It was contended that the cheques were not issued for the due discharge of any legally enforcible debt/liability. The amount was paid by the complainant as donation and not as an amount which is liable to be returned. It was further contended that the alleged Crl.R.P.Nos.37 & 38 of 2008 2 payment to the manager of the school to secure employment amounted to corruption and bribery and therefore the claim for return is not legally enforcible. 3. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that the complainant has succeeded in establishing all ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Accordingly they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments. 4. The petitioner/accused claims to be aggrieved by the impugned verdicts of guilty, convictions and sentences. Called upon to explain the nature of challenge which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall be satisfied if the petitioner were granted 2 months' time to make the payment and avoid the default sentence. No other contentions are raised on merits. 5. In the absence of any challenge raised against the validity of the verdicts of guilty, conviction and sentences on merits, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail in this common order. Suffice it to say that I have Crl.R.P.Nos.37 & 38 of 2008 3 gone through the impugned judgments. I am satisfied that the verdicts of guilty, conviction and sentences are absolutely justified. 6. Coming to the short and the simple prayer made for further time to make the payment, I must say that I find no merit whatsoever in that prayer. The cheques were issued in 2001. The proceedings were initiated in 2002. Trial court pronounced the judgment in 2005 (09.02.05) and the appellate court pronounced the judgment on 07.09.07. The sentence imposed is only imprisonment till rising of court. There is a further direction to pay the actual amounts of the cheques only as compensation. I do not, in these circumstances, find any merit in the prayer for even one day's further time to make the payment. The said last prayer does not find favour with me, viewed from any angle. 7. These Revision Petitions are, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- Crl.R.P.Nos.37 & 38 of 2008 4