IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2009 / 18TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2206 of 2009 ------------------------------ CRA.559/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM ST.1232/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(MOBILE), KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------- K.V.SARASAN, KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, LAKSHMI HOTEL, MARIATHURUTHU P.O., CHUNGAM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.SASIDHARAN SRI.SANTHOSH THOMAS KANDAMCHIRA RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ---------------------------------- 1. P.R.PURUSHOTHAMAN, PALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KEEZHIKUNNU P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 2206 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 09th day of July 2009 ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to make in this revision which is not prejudicial to him. Public prosecutor who took notice for respondent No.2. 2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Kottayam in Criminal Appeal No.559 of 2008 whereby conviction of petitioner for offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was confirmed but the sentence was modified. 3. Case arose on a complaint preferred by respondent No.1. According to him, petitioner borrowed Rs.75,000/- from him and for repayment of that amount Ext.P1, cheque dated 22-11- 04 was issued which was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Issue and service of statutory notice are proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1. Crl.R.P.No.2206 2 According to petitioner he had given signed blank cheque as security to respondent No.1 the capacity of latter as Secretary of SNDP Union in connection with the construction of a building. Apart from contenting so, petitioner did not produce any evidence or bring out circumstances to probabilise that contention. Respondent No.1 denied that suggestion and asserted that petitioner borrowed Rs.75,000/- from him and for repayment of that amount issued the cheque. Petitioner did not reply to the statutory notice served on him. Courts below have considered the evidence and found in favour of due execution of the cheque. I do not find reason to interfere with the concurrent finding. Learned magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for five months and to pay fine of Rs.75,000/-. Default sentence of three months was also provided. Learned Sessions Judge confirmed the sentence of fine and default sentence but modified the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. Learned counsel requested Crl.R.P.No.2206 3 that petitioner may be granted four months' time to deposit the fine. Having regard to the circumstances stated by learned counsel and the amount involved I am inclined to grant three months' time to deposit fine in the trial court. Resultantly this petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted three months' time from today to deposit the fine in the trial court. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 12-10-09 to receive the sentence. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/