IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 104 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRA.188/2004 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.747/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOTTARAKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ PONNAMMA P.G., SADANAM, VETTUVAZHI KURIODU P.O., KOTTARAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE SRI.DILIP MOHAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE: ------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. A.P.RADHAKRISHNAN, BRINDHA MANDIRAM, AMBALAMUKKU, THEVANNOOR MURI, ELAMADU VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON 16/01/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Crl.R.P. No. 104 OF 2008 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 16th 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. Some payment was effected during the pendency of the proceedings and the petitioner now faces a sentence of imprisonment till rising of court and to pay an amount of Rs.40,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. The cheque was for an amount of Rs.80,000/-. It bears the date 10.8.2000. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that all ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act have been established by the complainant. The appellate court took a lenient view and modified the sentence. 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the Crl.R.P.104/08 : 2 : impugned judgments. 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 the petitioner may be granted some further time to make the payment and thus avoid the default sentence. No further contentions are raised. 4. I reckon the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner as an informed and reasonable one. Having gone through the impugned concurrent judgments, I am satisfied that the impugned verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence imposed by the appellate court do not at all warrant interference. 5. I do not find merit or grace in the prayer for grant of any long further time to make payment of the compensation amount. The cheque was issued in 2000. Two rounds of litigation is already over. I am not satisfied that in 2007 any further time deserves to be granted for making the payment. However, I am satisfied that a short breathing time can be Crl.R.P.104/08 : 3 : given to the petitioner to pay the amount and thus avoid the default sentence. 6. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed. It is directed that the impugned sentence shall not be executed till 16.2.08. On or before that date, the petitioner can make the payment and succeed in avoiding the default sentence. The petitioner shall appear and her sureties shall produce her before the learned Magistrate on 18.2.08 for execution of the impugned sentence. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks