IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2633 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.267/2009 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT(ADHOC -II), ERNAKULAM CC.75/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------------------- M.K.SAROJA,W/O.M.R.RADHAKRISHNAN, MURIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,AYYAMPILLY,ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.U.NIDHIN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------- 1. ANIL PLAVANS, S/O.P.J.PLAVANS, PALLATHUSSERY HOUSE,AYYAMPILLY,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SESSIONS COURT,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.C.S.HRITHIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2633 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 14th day of August 2009 ORDER This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Adhoc-2), Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No. 267 of 2009 confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.1,60,000/- from him and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 14-10-2007 dishonour of which for insufficiency of funds is proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 and P5. Petitioner contended that she had no transaction with respondent No.1, that her husband had some transaction with respondent No.1 and towards that transaction, signed blank cheque was given as security. Courts below did not accept that contention of petitioner. 2. It is admitted that Ext.P1 is signed and drawn on the account maintained by petitioner. Though she contended that her husband had some transaction with respondent No.1, there is no evidence for that. That suggestion was denied by respondent No.1. Petitioner has not adduce evidence or brought out circumstance to prove or probabilise her contention. She has not replied to the statutory notice served on her. In the circumstances, finding of the Crl.R.P.No.2633 of 2009 2 courts below regarding due execution of the cheque does not warrant interference. 3. Substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner has been modified by the appellate court as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. The sentence of fine has been reduced from Rs.1,60,000/- to Rs.80,000/-. Default sentence has been modified as simple imprisonment for one month. It is seen from paragraph 10 of the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge that it was agreed by both sides that during the pendency of the case petitioner had paid Rs.80,000/- to respondent No.1 towards part payment of the amount covered by the cheque. It is on taking note of that payment that learned Additional Sessions Judge modified fine as Rs.80,000/- and directed that the said amount if realised will be paid to respondent No.1 as compensation. I find no reason to interfere with the sentence as modified by the appellate court, at the instance of petitioner. 4. Learned counsel has requested that six months' time may be granted to the petitioner to deposit the fine. It is stated that petitioner is not able to raise the entire amount on account of financial difficulties. Having regard to the circumstances I am inclined to grant time till 11-01-2010 for deposit the fine. Resultantly this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 14-01-2010 to deposit the fine in the trial court as Crl.R.P.No.2633 of 2009 3 ordered by the appellate court. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 15-01-2010 to receive the sentence. Execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance till 15-01-2010. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/