IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2009 / 19TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2572 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.702/2008 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.1338/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- DR.A.ASOKAN, S/O.T.P.APPUKUTTAN, MEDICAL OFFICER, GOVT.DISTRICT AYURVEDA HOSPITAL, NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT(S): IST RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------- 1. RAVEENDRAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN NAIR, MAYIKA, N.C.R.ENCLAVE, KOPPAM, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2572 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2009. ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in this revision 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-I, Palakkad in Crl.Appeal No.702 of 2008 confirming conviction and sentence imposed on petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). Respondent No.1 filed a private complaint alleging that petitioner borrowed Rs.30,000/- from him and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 26.2.2007. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Ext.P2. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P3 to P5. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and testified to his case. Petitioner had no specific defence as to how else the cheque happened to be in the custody of respondent No.1. He did not cross examine respondent No.1. It is in the above circumstances courts below found in favour of due execution of the cheque. It is not shown that the finding suffers from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety calling for interference in this revision. Hence conviction of petitioner does not require interference. Crl.R.P.No.2572/2009 2 3. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to pay fine of Rs.30,000/- and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. It was directed that the fine if realized will be paid to respondent No.1 as compensation. Appellate court confirmed the sentence. Having regard to the nature of offence and the amount involved I do not find reason to interfere with the sentence awarded by court below, at the instance of petitioner. 4. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted three months’ time to deposit the fine. It is stated that petitioner is unable to raise the amount immediately on account of financial difficulties. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel and the amount involved, I am inclined to grant time to the petitioner till 7.11.2009 to deposit the fine in the trial court. Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 7.11.2009 from this day to deposit fine in the trial court. In case of non-compliance petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 9.11.2009 receive the default sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks