IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1147 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.113/2009 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), KOTTAYAM ST.10/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,II, CHENGANACHERRY .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- SANJU KUMAR @ KANNAN, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.RAJAPPAN, ASARIPARAMBIL, COLONY NO.4, ONNAMKARA, MANCOMBU, THEKKEKKARA P.O., KUTTANADU TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB GEORGE (PATHAZHAKKUZHIKAL) SRI.JOSEPH A.VADAKKEL SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.P.DEVARAJAN, RAJESH BHAVAN, LAIKKADU, PERUNNA EAST, CHANGANACHERRY (DIED). 3. R.MANIAMMA, W/O.K.P.DEVARAJAN, RAJESHBHAVAN, LAIKKADU, PERUNNA EAST, CHANGANACHERRY. R1 P.P. SRI VENUGOPAL M.R. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl. R.P. No. 1147 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 17th Day of May, 2010 ORDER This Crl.Revision Petition is preferred by the accused in a prosecution for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The allegation against the accused/revision petitioner is that he had borrowed an amount of Rs.35,000/- from the complainant one Devarajan, who is no more and in discharge of such liability, the revision petitioner issued a cheque for Rs.35,000/- which when presented for encashment was dishonoured, hence instituted the above complaint. During the trial, Maniyamma Devarajan, wife of the said Devarajan was examined as PW1 who was prosecuting the complaint and produced Exts.P1 to P6 documents. From the side of the accused, himself was examined as DW1 and marked Exts.D1 and D2. The trial court found that the revision petitioner/accused is guilty under section 138 of CRL.R.P. No.1147/2010 -:2:- the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.35,000/- and the default sentence is fixed as simple imprisonment for three months. 3. Both the conviction and sentence were challenged by the revision petitioner by filing Crl.A.No.113/2009 and by judgment dated 25.11.2009, the Sessions Court partly allowed the appeal by confirming the conviction and the sentence was modified and he was directed to a pay only a fine of 35,000/- and in default of payment of fine he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. It was also ordered that if the amount of fine is realised, the same shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased complainant. 4. The present Crl.Revision Petition is filed challenging the judgments of the lower courts. There is no dispute regarding the transaction claimed by the complainant. But according to the accused, he had received only Rs.15,000/- from the husband of PW1 CRL.R.P. No.1147/2010 -:3:- and paid back Rs.10,000/-. The Trial court as well as the lower appellate court has specifically found that though the revision petitioner/accused has taken such a contention, to substantiate such contention, no evidence was adduced. The revision petitioner miserably failed to make out any case and to discredit the testimony of PW1. As the accused has admitted the financial transaction, execution and the issuance of the cheque and when the courts below have concurrently found that the complainant has succeeded in establishing the case against the accused, I find no merit in the Crl.Revision Petition. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that breathing time may be granted to make the payment of the fine amount. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that two months' time can be granted to the revision petitioner to deposit the fine amount. In the result, this Crl. R.P is disposed of confirming the CRL.R.P. No.1147/2010 -:4:- conviction recorded by both the courts below and confirming the sentence of fine awarded by the lower appellate court and the petitioner is further directed to deposit the fine amount within two months from today and if there is any default on the part of the petitioner in making the deposit, within the stipulated time, the trial court is free to take coercive steps for executing the sentence and realising the fine amount. The Crl.R.P is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- CRL.R.P. No.1147/2010 -:5:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:..