IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 46 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRA.294/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT FAST TRACK (ADHOC-I), KOZHIKODE CC.789/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, PERAMBRA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------- RAJA KURUP, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.APPUKUTTY NAIR EZHUTHACHANKANDY, KALPATHUR P.O. KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. BABURAJ, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN ADIYODI PARAMBATTU HOUSE, MEPPAYUR, KOZHIKODE. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V.T.K. MOHANAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 46 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th 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 cheque is for an amount of Rs.50,000/- It bears the date 20.6.2004. Cognizance was taken on a private complaint. The accused denied the offence. PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.P1 to P9 were marked. The accused did not adduce any defence evidence. The only contention that was raised is that the real amount of loan was Rs.5,000/- and that the said liability has been discharged subsequently. 2. The courts below, in these circumstances, concurrently came to the conclusion that the said defence cannot be accepted. Accordingly they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments. Crl.R.P.No. 46 of 2007 2 3. 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 prays that a short breathing time may be granted to the petitioner so that the petitioner can raise the amount, pay the same and avoid the default sentence. 4. The cheque is of the year 2004. Trial court judgment was rendered on 27.3.2006. Appellate court judgment was rendered on 31.5.2007. I find absolutely no merit in the prayer made for extension of time for making the payment. However, I am satisfied that the petitioner can be granted a short breathing time to make the payment. 5. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed, but with the observation that the impugned sentence against the petitioner shall not be executed till 31.1.2008. On or before 1.2.2008 the petitioner shall appear and the sureties shall produce him before the learned Magistrate for execution of the impugned sentence. (R. BASANT) tm Judge Crl.R.P.No. 46 of 2007 3