IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 20 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRA.21/2002 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-III, THALASSERY CC.68/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, TALIPARAMBA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- PARAMMAL JAMAL, S/O ABDUL KHADER, AGED 37 YEARS, P.O.MANDOOR, KANNUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.S.MAMMU RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ 1. K.V.HARIDAS, S/O GOVINDAN KUTTY NAIR, CHIRAVAKKU, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR. 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 03/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- Crl.R.P.No.20 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd 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. 2. The petitioner now faces a sentence of imprisonment till rising of court and there is a direction to pay the actual cheque amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo S.I for a period of three months. The signature in the cheque is admitted. Handing over of the cheque is not disputed. 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 was handed over to another person in a vehicle transaction. Though the counsel contends that there is a reply to the notice of demand, any such notice is seen marked in the proceedings before the lower court. No defence evidence whatsoever was adduced also. 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. Crl.R.P.No.20/08 2 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 leniency may be shown on the question of sentence. It is therefore prayed that a reasonable further time may be granted to the petitioner to pay the amount of compensation and avoid the default sentence. In the absence of challenge on any specific grounds, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail in this order. Suffice it to say that I find the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence to be absolutely justified. 5. The cheque was dated 29/9/2007. Even though a period exceeding a decade has elapsed, the amount has not been paid yet. I do not in these circumstances find any merit in the prayer for any further time to make the payment. The petitioner must appear before the learned Magistrate forthwith and suffer the impugned sentence imposed. He must raise the amount and pay the same forthwith, if he were to avoid the default sentence. I direct the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate on 21/1/2008 to suffer the sentence imposed. His sureties shall produce him before that court on that day. 6. This Crl.R.P is dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.R.P.No.20/08 3 Crl.R.P.No.20/08 4 R.BASANT, J C.R.R.P.No. ORDER 21ST DAY OF JULY 2006