IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2646 of 2009() ---------------------------------------- CRA.1060/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.411/2005 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - VI, NEYYATTINKARA ............................................................................................................................. REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- GEORGE BENNAT E, S/O. J. ELIYASAR, T.T.A, BSNL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, POOVACHAL, RESIDING AT C-2, BSNL QUARTERS, KATTAKKADA. BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ.R.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. C. RAJAGOPALAN, VAIHNAV, MANGALATHU KONAM, KATTACHALKUZHI P.O., BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2646 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 17th August,2009 ORDER Notice to respondent no.2 is dispensed with in view of the order I am propose to pass in the revision which is not prejudicial to the respondent no.2. 2. A concurrent finding entered by the courts below as to the due execution of a cheque for discharge of a legally enforcible debt/ liability is challenged in this revision. Petitioner faced trial in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-VI, Neyyattinkara in CC No.411 of 2005. Complaint of respondent no.2 is that petitioner borrowed Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) from him and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 30/10/2004.Dishonour of that cheque for insufficiency of funds is proved by Ext.P2 series. 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. According to the petitioner, he received Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only) from one Saseendran in the year, 1997 on four occasions sand gave four signed blank cheques Crl.R.P.No.2646 of 2009 2 of himself and wife. He repaid the entire amount by 30/3/2002. At that time, the blank cheques taken from his wife were returned to him. But Saseendran did not return the blank cheques taken from him. One of those cheques has been misused. To prove that petitioner's wife died on 8/4/2002, th death certificate (Ext.D1) is produced. Courts below were not impressed by the contention of petitioner and found him guilty. That finding is challenged in this revision. 3. It is not disputed that Ext.P1 is signed by petitioner and drawn on the account maintained by him. It is true that petitioner has a contention as to how else the cheque happened to be in the custody of respondent no.2. But that suggestion was denied by respondent no.2. There is no evidence or circumstances to prove or probabilise the contention of petitioner as to possession of the cheque with respondent no.2. Saseendran who is said to have had transaction with petitioner replied to the notice served on him. Courts below held that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of respondent no.2 regarding the transaction Crl.R.P.No.2646 of 2009 3 and execution of the cheque. The finding of the courts below regarding execution of the cheque is not vitiated by any illegality,irregularities or impropriety calling for interference in revision.Conviction of petitioner required no interference. 4. Learned Sessions Judge has modified the sentence to simple imprisonment till rising of the court and fine of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) with default sentence of imprisonment for three months. It is directed that the fine if realised will be paid to respondent No.2 as compensation. Having regard to the nature of offence and the amount the amount involved, there is no reason to interfere with the sentence as modified by the appellate court at the instance of petitioner. 5. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted 3 months' time to deposit fine in the trial court. It is stated that due to financial difficulties petitioner is unable to raise the entire amount immediately. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to grant time till 17/11/2009. Crl.R.P.No.2646 of 2009 4 Resultantly this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 17/11/2009 to deposit the fine in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 18/11/2009 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any, against the petitioner will stand in abeyance. THOMAS P JOSEPH,JUDGE ssn