IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2183 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.406/2006 of ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOTTAYAM CC.719/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ERATTUPETTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- T.K.RAJAMMA, W/O.DEVARAJAN, TEACHER, VHSE, THIDANADU P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.P.SETHU RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. JOSHY GEORGE, S/O.VARKEY, MOOZHIANKAD VEEDU, MUTTAKKADU, POONJAR P.O. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2183 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2009. ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in this revision and which is not prejudicial to him. Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. 2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Kottayam in Crl.Appeal No.406 of 2006 confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). Case arose on a complaint preferred by respondent No.1. According to him petitioner borrowed Rs.60,000/- from him on 1.10.2004 and issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 9.10.2004 for repayment of that amount. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Exts.P2 and P3. On getting information about dishonour respondent No.1 served statutory notice on petitioner. Issue and service of notice on petitioner are proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Finding of the courts below regarding those aspects are not challenged. Challenge is regarding the finding of courts below as to due execution of the cheque. It is contended that due execution of the cheque is not proved. 3. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and stated to his case leading to execution of the cheque. According to the petitioner she had no Crl.R.P.No.2183/2009 2 dealings with respondent No.1. Instead, her husband had some transaction with respondent No.1 and in connection with that her husband handed over her signed blank cheque. Courts below did not accept that contention. 4. It is not disputed that the cheque is signed by the petitioner and drawn on her account. Petitioner’s contention that her husband handed over the cheque as security for the transaction he had with respondent No.1 is not proved or probabilised. That suggestion has been denied by respondent No.1. Petitioner did not reply to the statutory notice served on him. It is in these circumstances that courts below accepted evidence of respondent No.1 regarding the transaction. As that finding is not vitiated by any illegality, irregularity or impropriety, I do not find reason to interfere. 5. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. Petitioner was directed to pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation to respondent No.1 and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Appellate court modified substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court but converted compensation as fine of Rs.60,000/- with default sentence of imprisonment for two months. It is also directed that fine if realized will be paid to respondent No.1 as compensation. Having regard to the nature of offence and amount involved there is no reason to interfere with the sentence as modified by the appellate court. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner requested that petitioner may be granted six months’ time to deposit the fine in the trial court. He stated about the difficulties experienced by the petitioner to raise the amount within a short Crl.R.P.No.2183/2009 3 time. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel petitioner is granted time till 30.11.2009 to deposit fine. Resultantly this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 30.11.2009 to deposit fine in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 1.12.2009 to receive the sentence. Execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance till 1.12.2009. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks