IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 88 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRA.373/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA CC.1369/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVISION/PETITIONER APPELLANT IN CRL.A.NO.373/2006 ACCUSED IN CC NO.1369/2006: ------------------ THOMAS UMMAN, VALIYAKALA PADINJARETHIL NELLIMALA P.O., KUNNATHUMKARA, KOIPURAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. VARGHESE GEORGE, AMAYIL PUTHEN PURAYIL HOUSE, KADAPRA P.O., KUMBANADU 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 15/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- Crl.R.P.No.88 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th 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 Negotiable Instruments Act. After the appellate modification of the sentence, the petitioner now faces a sentence of imprisonment till rising of court and there is a direction to pay an amount of Rs.60,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo S.I for a period of two months. 2. The cheque is for an amount of Rs.60,000/-. It bears the date 03/08/2004. The signature in the cheque is admitted. No specific defence on merits is taken by the petitioner. Notice of demand though duly received and acknowledged did not evoke any response. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to P7. The accused did not adduce any defence evidence. 3. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that the complainant has succeeded in establishing all the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act. Accordingly they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments. Crl.R.P.No.88/08 2 4. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned concurrent judgments. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly it appears to me, does not strain to assail the verdict of guilty and conviction on merits. He only prays that leniency may be shown on the question of sentence and reasonable further time may be granted to the petitioner to pay the amount of compensation. 5. Having gone through the impugned concurrent judgments, I find the verdict of guilty conviction and sentence and the direction to pay compensation to be absolutely justified and unexceptionable. The same do not warrant any interference. In the absence of challenge on any specific grounds, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail in this order. 6. I find no merit or grace in the prayer for any long further time to make the payment. The complainant has been compelled to fight two rounds of legal battle and to wait from 03/08/2004 for the redressal of his grievances. The petitioner does not deserve any further indulgence now. However, I am Crl.R.P.No.88/08 3 satisfied that the petitioner can be given a short breathing time to make the payment and avoid the default sentence. 7. In the result this revision petition is dismissed but with the observation/direction that the petitioner shall have time till 29/02/2008 to make the payment. The petitioner shall appear and his sureties shall produce him before the learned Magistrate on or before 01/03/2008 to serve the modified sentence hereby imposed. The impugned sentence shall not be executed till 29/02/2008. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.R.P.No.88/08 4 Crl.R.P.No.88/08 5 R.BASANT, J C.R.R.P.No. ORDER 21ST DAY OF JULY 2006