IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4575 of 2007() ------------------------------ CRA.203/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA CC.359/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, RANNI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- SASI PILLAI @ O.E.SASIDHARAN NAIR S/O. CHELLAPPAN NAIR, SREE BHAVANAM, KUNNAM, VECHOOCHIRA. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE ------------------------------ 1. JAMES ABRAHAM,KIZHAKKEDATHU HOUSE CHERUKULANJI, RANNY. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Crl.R.P. No. 4575 OF 2007 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 7th day of January, 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 petitioner now faces a sentence of imprisonment till rising of court. He is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. The cheque is for an amount of Rs.1,25,000/-.It bears the date 3.4.2003. Signature in the cheque is admitted. Notice of demand though duly received and acknowledged, did not evoke any response. The complainant, who had himself presented the complaint, examined PW1 who claimed to be the Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant. PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. On the side of the accused, DW1 was examined. CRRP.4575/07 : 2 : 3. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that the complainant has succeeded in establishing all ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Accordingly, they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgment. The sentence was of course modified and reduced by the court below. 4. Called upon to explain the nature of challenge, which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not strain to assail the verdict of guilty and conviction on merits. The learned counsel for the petitioner only raised the technical contention that PW1 who had tendered evidence on behalf of the complainant and claims to be the P.A. Holder of the complainant had not produced such instrument of Power of Attorney. This procedural inadequacy, I am afraid, cannot affect the validity of the verdict of guilty and conviction. PW1 admittedly claimed to be a person who was conversant with the transaction in question. He had tendered direct evidence CRRP.4575/07 : 3 : about the transaction between the accused and the complainant. In these circumstances, the omission/failure to produce the deed of Power of Attorney cannot in any way militate or detract against the credibility or acceptability of the evidence to PW1 which has been found to be acceptable by the courts below. The mere fact that the Deed of Power of Attorney has not been produced to show the appointment of PW1 cannot result in the rejection of his evidence in an omni base manner. No other contentions are raised. I am satisfied that the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence do not warrant any interference at all. 5. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner may be given breathing time to make the payment and to avoid the default sentence. I am satisfied that the petitioner, who has got time from 2003 even after the initiation of this proceedings to pay the amount, has no justification to make such prayer for further time. The petitioner shall have time till 29.2.08 to make the payment and CRRP.4575/07 : 4 : avoid the default sentence. The sentence shall not be executed till that date. 6. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate and his sureties shall produce him before the learned Magistrate on or before 1.3.08 for execution of the sentence. 7. This Crl.R.P. is dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks