IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2009 / 1ST ASHADHA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 1946 OF 2009() -------------------------------------------- CRA.543/2006 OF II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM ST.3423/2005 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, NEDUMANGAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------------------- A.SADIQ, M.M.HOUSE, ANAPPARA, VITHURA, NEDUMANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.R.V.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SURENDRAN NAIR, GOKULAM, NEAR CHAYAM L.P.S., VITHURA P.O., NEDUMANGAD. 2. STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, HIGH COURT BUILDING, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.1946 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to make and which is not prejudicial to him. Public Prosecutor took notice for respondent No.2. 2. Petitioner faced trial in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Nedumangad in ST No.3423 of 2005. Complaint was preferred by respondent No.1 alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. His case is that petitioner owed Rs.40,000/- to him and for discharge of that liability issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 24.2.2003. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Ext.P2, memo dated 21.7.2003. Respondent No.1 issued notice to petitioner on 11.8.2003. Issue and service of statutory notice intimating dishonour and demanding payment are proved by Exts.P3 to P5. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as P.W.1 and claimed that petitioner borrowed the amount from him and for repayment of that amount issued the cheque. According to the petitioner, he has borrowed only Rs.10,000/- and at that time a signed blank cheque was given as security. He repaid Rs.7,500/- and CRL. R.P. No.1946 of 2009 -: 2 :- the balance is only Rs.2,500/-. The blank cheque was misused by respondent No.1. There is no challenge to the finding of the courts below as to cause of dishonour of cheque and issue and service of statutory notice on petitioner. As regards the finding on execution of cheque it is contended that that finding is not correct. 3. Respondent No.1 gave evidence regarding the transaction and due execution of the cheque. Petitioner merely suggested to respondent No.1 that transaction was only for Rs.10,000/- and out of which he repaid Rs.7,500/-, which was denied by respondent No.1. There is no evidence or circumstance to show that transaction was only regarding Rs.10,000/- or that any amount was repaid by the petitioner. Petitioner did not even reply to the statutory notice served on him. Nothing is brought out to discredit the version of respondent No.1 regarding the transaction and execution of the cheque. Courts below found in favour of due execution of the cheque. I do not find reason to interfere with the finding entered by the courts below as no illegality, irregularity or impropriety is involved. 4. Learned magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. He was directed to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- to respondent No.1 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 1½ months. Appellate court CRL. R.P. No.1946 of 2009 -: 3 :- modified the sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. Instead of compensation petitioner was directed to pay fine of Rs.42,000/- and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. It was also directed that fine if realised, Rs.40,000/- shall be given to respondent No.1 as compensation. There is no reason to interfere with the sentence as modified by the appellate court. 5. Counsel for petitioner requested four months' time to deposit the fine. He explained the difficulties of petitioner in raising the sum immediately. Having regard to the circumstances stated and amount involved I am inclined to grant three months' time to the petitioner to deposit the in the trail court. Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted three months' time from this day to deposit the fine as ordered by the appellate court, in the trial court. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 24.9.2009 to receive the sentence. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv