IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2473 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.629/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.1352/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- M.A.BABU,AD A3-3435,MG UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS SMT.RUBY K.JOSE RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: --------------- 1. JOSEPH P.GEORGE,PULLATHIL HOUSE, PERUMBAIKKADU P.O,ADICHIRA,KOTTAYAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R.JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2473 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2009. ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in the revision which is not prejudicial to him. Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. 2. Petitioner is challenging the concurrent finding entered by the courts below as to the due execution of a cheque for discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. Petitioner who faced trial in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Kottayam in C.C.No.1352 of 2004 was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. There was a direction for payment of compensation of Rs.40,000/- to respondent No.1 with a default sentence of imprisonment for one month. In Crl.Appeal No.629 of 2007 learned Sessions Judge confirmed conviction but modified sentence as fine of Rs.40,000/- with a default sentence of imprisonment for one month. According to respondent No.1, petitioner owed Rs.40,000/- to him and for discharge of that liability issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 29.6.2004. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 and P5. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and spoke to his case. Petitioner denied that he had any transaction with respondent No.1. Instead, he Crl.R.P.No.2473/2009 2 had borrowed Rs.5,000/- from one Sunny Sebastian and given a signed blank cheque as security. That cheque was misused. It is contended that finding of the courts below regarding due execution of the cheque is not correct. 3. It is admitted that Ext.P1 contained the signature of petitioner and that cheque is drawn on the account maintained by him. It is true that he has a contention as to how else the cheque happened to be in the custody of respondent. Apart from the mere suggestion to respondent No.1 which he denied, there is no evidence on record to hold so. Petitioner did not reply to the statutory notice. Nothing is brought out to disbelieve the evidence of PW1. Petitioner has not rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Act. It is in these circumstances that courts below found in favour of due execution of the cheque. As such conviction does not require interference. 4. Considering the nature of offence and the amount involved I do not find reason to interfere with the sentence as modified by the appellate court or the default sentence provided. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner has been taken to custody in connection with another case and that he is not being released in view of the warrant pending in this case. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted six months’ time to deposit the fine since petitioner is in a financially difficult situation and is unable to raise the amount immediately. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined to grant time to the petitioner till 30.12.2009 to deposit fine. Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 30.12.2009 from this day to deposit fine in the trial court as Crl.R.P.No.2473/2009 3 ordered by the appellate court. In case petitioner failed to comply, he shall appear in the trial court on 31.12.2009 to receive the default sentence as ordered by the appellate court. Warrant if any issued against the petitioner will stand recalled and will remain in abeyance till 31.12.2009. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks