IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 74 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRA.516/2005 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.576/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KATTAKADA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ S.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, NEDUMKALATHADATHA- RIKATHU VEEDU, VALLIPPARA, PPOVACHAL. BY ADV. SRI.R.V.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL MAJEED, NISHA MANZIL, POOVACHAL, POOVACHAL P.O. 2. STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, HIGH COURT BUILDING, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- Crl.R.P.No.74 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th 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 petitioner now faces a sentence of imprisonment till rising of court and there is a direction to pay an amount of Rs.1,13,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo S.I for a period of three months. 2. The cheque is for an amount of Rs.1,13,039/-. It bears the date 04/01/2001. The signature in the cheque is admitted. Handing over of the cheque is also admitted. Notice of demand though duly received and acknowledged did not evoke any response. The short contention raised was that the cheque was not handed over to the complainant for the discharge of any legally enforcible debt/liability; but only as security for a financial transaction of Rs.5,000/- with one Radhakrishnan. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to P6. The accused did not adduce any defence evidence. Crl.R.P.No.74/08 2 3. 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. 4. 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 four months further time may be granted to the petitioner to raise and pay the amount of compensation and thus avoid the default sentence. The verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence are not challenged and I reckon that as an informed and fair stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having gone through the impugned concurrent judgments, I am satisfied that the impugned verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence are unexceptionable. 5. Coming to the prayer for further time to make the payment and avoid the default sentence, I note that the complainant has now been compelled to fight two rounds of legal battle and to wait for six long years for the redressal of his grievances. I find absolutely no merit in the prayer for grant of Crl.R.P.No.74/08 3 any further time to make the payment. However, I am satisfied that a short breathing time can be granted to the petitioner to raise and pay the amount and thus avoid the default sentence. 6. In the result: a) This revision petition is dismissed but with the observation/direction that the impugned sentence shall not be executed till 29/2/2008. On or before 01/03/2008, the petitioner shall appear and his sureties shall produce him before the learned Magistrate for execution of the impugned sentence. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.R.P.No.74/08 4 Crl.R.P.No.74/08 5 R.BASANT, J C.R.R.P.No. ORDER 21ST DAY OF JULY 2006