IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2008 / 28TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 123 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRA.506/2003 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, TRIVANDRUM CC.25/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, ATTINGAL .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------- FAROOQ, S/O ABDUL RAHMAN, CHARUVILA VEEDU, MANGALAPURAM, VELLOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ 1. DILEEP KUMAR, S/O KUTTAPPAN, KANNETHUVILA VEEDU, KATTAIKONAM, AYIRORPPARA VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- Crl.R.P.No.123 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of January 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The cheque is for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The petitioner now faces a sentence of imprisonment till rising of court and there is a direction to pay an amount of Rs.1,01,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo S.I for a period of three months. 2. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that the complainant has succeeded in establishing all the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act. Accordingly they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments. 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned concurrent judgments. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner only prays that some further time may be granted to the petitioner to pay the amount of compensation and Crl.R.P.No.123/08 2 thus avoid the default sentence. No other contentions are raised. I am satisfied that the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence do not warrant any interference. I do not find much merit or grace in the claim for further time to make the payment. The cheque is dated 20/05/2000. Payment has not been effected so far. Leniency to a fault has already been shown. The prayer for any long further time to make the payment must hence be rejected. However, I am satisfied that a short breathing time can be given to the petitioner to make the payment and avoid the default sentence. 4. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed but with the observation/direction that the petitioner shall have time till 29/02/2008 to make the payment. The impugned sentence shall not be executed till that date. The petitioner shall appear and his sureties shall produce him before the learned Magistrate on or before 01/03/2008 to serve the modified sentence hereby imposed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.R.P.No.123/08 3 Crl.R.P.No.123/08 4 R.BASANT, J Crl.M.A.Nos.21 & 65 of 2008 in Crl.R.P.No.765 of 2007 ORDER 17th DAY OF JANUARY 2008 Crl.R.P.No.123/08 5