IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 12TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 204 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRA.804/2005 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, TRIVANDRUM ST.2400/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, ATTINGAL .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT ACCUSED ----------------------------------- JALAJAMANI AMMA,D/O.PONNAMMA KALA BHAVAN, PIKAKADA KODUVAZHANOOR, KODUVAZHANOOR VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.A.G.ANEETHA SRI.MANU SOLOMAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THANKAPPAN NAIR S/O.NARAYANAN PILLAI SHEENA NIVAS, NJAVELIKONAM KILIMANOOR ,PAZHAYAKUNNUMMEL VILLAGE 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P.No.204 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I Act. The cheque is for an amount of Rs.1,20,000/-. It bears the date 07.09.2004. The petitioner now faces a sentence of imprisonment till rising of court. There is a further direction to pay an amount of Rs.1,22,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo s.i for a further period of three months. 2. Signature in the cheque is admitted. Handing over of the cheque by the petitioner after affixing signature is also not disputed. But she took up a contention that the cheque was not issued by her to the complainant for the due discharge of any legally enforcible debt/liability. She had handed over the blank signed cheque to the son in law of the complainant. Why did she hand over the blank signed cheque to the son in law ? According to the petitioner, the complainant's son in law was in need of money. He came to the petitioner and asked her to give him an amount of Rs.5,000/-. She did not have money. She therefore 2 handed over a blank signed cheque to the son in law of the complainant. The son in law gave that blank signed cheque to the complainant. He advanced money to his son in law on his plea that the amount was needed by the petitioner. The cehque was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Notice of demand did not evoke any prompt response. Of course long later, after the initiation of the proceedings, a reply notice is said to have been issued. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to P5. The accused examined herself as DW1. Exts.D1 to D3 - all relating to the belated reply notice issued were produced on her side. 3. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that the complainant has succeeded in establishing all ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Accordingly they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments. 4. Called upon to explain the nature of challenge, which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner only reiterates the contention that the cheque was handed over as a blank signed cheque to the complainant's son in law. 3 5. That contention has been considered by both the courts below. They had come to the conclusion that the explanation offered by the petitioner is untenable and unacceptable. I completely concur with the view taken by the courts below. It is idle to assume that the petitioner handed over a blank signed cheque to the son in law of the complainant when he came to her asking for a loan of Rs.5,000/-. The weird theory advanced is inherently fragile and cannot be swallowed by a prudent mind in the absence of convincing materials. The petitioner has chosen to examine only herself as a witness in support of this theory. The challenge raised cannot, in these circumstances, succeed. 6. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed, but with the observation that the petitioner shall have time till 31.03.08 to raise and make payment of the compensation amount and avoid the default sentence. The sentence shall not be executed till that date. The petitioner shall appear and the sureties shall produce him before the learned Magistrate on 01.04.08 for execution of the sentence imposed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-