IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2761 OF 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.42/2007 OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, KASARGOD CC.430/2005 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-II, KASARGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------- M.LATHA KUMARI, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O.J.RAMAN, STAFF NURSE, ESI HOSPITAL, KADRI, SHIVABAGH, MANGALORE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAMESH SHETTY, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.M.S.AITHAPPA SHETTY, GRAMACHAVADY, SHIRIYA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S. HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2761 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009 O R D E R -------------- This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Kasargod in Crl. Appeal No.42 of 2007 confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to respondent No.1, petitioner owed Rs.60,000/- to him and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 7.5.2004. Its dishonour for insufficiency of funds is proved by Ext.P2. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P3 to P5. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as P.W.1 and stated to his case. According to the petitioner she had no transaction with respondent No1. nor did she issue any cheque as claimed by respondent No.1. Petitioner did not adduce evidence or bring out circumstance to prove or probabilise that contention. She has not replied to the statutory notice. Courts below after consideration of the evidence found that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of respondent No.1 regarding the transaction and execution of the cheque. It is not shown that finding of the courts below suffers from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel that counsel or CRL. R.P. No.2761 of 2009 -: 2 :- petitioner was not heard before disposing the appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is seen that in spite of specific direction counsel had not appeared before the learned Additional Sessions Judge but the appeal was disposed of on merits after perusing the records. There is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the appellate court disposing of the appeal in that way. Hence no interference is called for with the conviction of petitioner. 3. In modification of the sentence imposed by learned magistrate and direction of payment of compensation, appellate court sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court and payment of fine of Rs.60,000/- with default sentence of imprisonment for one month. Considering the nature of the offence and amount involved, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence as modified by the appellate court or the default sentence at the instance of petitioner. 4. Learned counsel requested six months’ time to deposit fine in the trial court. Counsel submitted about the financial difficulties of petitioner in raising the amount immediately. Having regard to the circumstances stated by counsel I am inclined to grant time till 20.1.2010 to deposit fine in the trial court as ordered by the CRL. R.P. No.2761 of 2009 -: 3 :- appellate court. Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 20.1.2010 to deposit fine in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 21.1.2010 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any, against petitioner will be kept in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv