IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2462 of 2009 ------------------------------ CRA.304/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KOTTAYAM CC.409/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ERATTUPETTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------------------- BIJUKUMAR K.K., S/O.KUMARAN, KOCHUKULANTHINKAL HOUSE, KIZHATHADIYOOR P.O., PALA. BY ADV. SRI.BABY THOMAS SRI.GIGIMON ISSAC RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. JUSTIN KURIAN, PULLATTU HOUSE, MELAMPARA, ERATTUPETTA. 2. KERALA STATE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAYAKRISHNAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: app/- THOMAS.P.JOSEPH, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl. R.P.No.2462 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2009 O R D E R Petitioner challenges the concurrent finding entered by the courts below as to the due execution of a cheque for discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability and his consequent conviction and sentence for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'the Act'). I have dispensed with notice to respondent No.1 in view of the order, I propose to pass in this revision which is not prejudicial to him. 2. According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) from him and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 25.4.2006. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Issue and service of notice on petitioner are proved by Exts.P4 to Crl. R.P.No.2462 of 2009 2 P6. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1. According to the petitioner, he had no transaction with respondent No.1 but he did not explain how else the cheque happened to be in the custody of respondent No.1. It is contended that due execution of the cheque is not proved. 3. It is seen that evidence of respondent No.1 was not subjected to cross examination. He was examined in the trial court on 8.8.2007. There was no cross examination. On 7.11.2007 respondent No.1 was recalled for cross examination on the request of petitioner but still he was not subjected to cross examination though petitioner and counsel were present in court. Thereafter also, petitioner had several opportunities but he did not attempt to cross examine respondent No.1. Thus there is the unchallenged version of respondent No.1 regarding the transaction leading to execution of the cheque. Courts below have rightly accepted that evidence and found petitioner guilty. There is little reason to interfere. Crl. R.P.No.2462 of 2009 3 4. Learned magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and payment of fine of Rs.40,000/-. A default sentence of simple imprisonment for two months was also provided. Learned Additional sessions judge modified the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court while confirming the sentence of fine and default sentence. I find no reason to interfere with the sentence at the instance of petitioner. 5. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted eight months time to deposit the fine. According to learned counsel, petitioner is a labourer and is unable to raise the amount immediately. 6. The cheque is dated 25.4.2006. No amount was paid at any point of time thereafter. However, considering the difficulties of petitioner stated by learned counsel, I am inclined to grant time till 30.12.2009 to deposit fine in the trial court. Crl. R.P.No.2462 of 2009 4 Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 30.12.2009 to deposit fine in the trial court. Petitioner shall appear in that court on 31.12.2009 to receive the sentence. Execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will remain in abeyance till then. THOMAS.P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. app/-