IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 30TH APRIL 2010 / 10TH VAISAKHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1471 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.518/2008 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.761/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- P.BHAGAVATHY,W/O.KRISHNAN(LATE),12/1039 (1)MADAM BUTTERFLY,LADIES FANCY STORE, NINAN COMPLEX, METTUPALAYAM STREET, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.BALAGOPAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. JACOB,S/O. DEVASSI,CHEMMANNUR VEEDU, KUNNATHURMEDU,PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1471 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 30th day of April, 2010 ORDER This revision petition is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Palakkad in Crl.Appeal.No.518 of 2008 confirming conviction of appellant for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”) but modifying the sentence. The case arose on a complaint preferred by respondent No.1. He alleged that petitioner owed Rs.60,000/- to him and to discharge that liability issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 27-12-2004. Dishonour of that cheque for insufficiency of funds and issue and service of statutory notice on petitioner are proved by Exts.P2 to P4 series. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and testified to his case. Petitioner denied that she had any transaction with respondent No.1 and claimed tht the cheque involved was received by respondent No.1 through one Suresh. Appellant examined the manager of the drawee bank as DW1 and proved Ext.D1, her specimen signature card presumably to show that Ext.P1 was not signed by her. Courts below were not impressed by the contentions raised by the appellant and held her guilty under section 138 of the Act. That is under challenge in this Crl.R.P.No.1471 of 2010 : 2 : revision petition. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the courts below have not referred to the evidence of DW1 and Ext.D1. It is also submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that evidence of PW1 regarding the transaction is not believable. 2. It is not disputed that Ext.P1 was drawn on the account maintained by petitioner. Hence there is reason to think that the cheque was drawn by the petitioner on the account maintained by her. In case she alleged forgery of the cheque that was something which she had to prove as this court held in Ajithkumar Vs. Rejinkumar & Another (2009 (3) KHC 221) Evidence adduced by the petitioner to prove the alleged forgery is that of DW1 and Ext.D1. It is true that there is no specific reference to Ext.D1 by the courts below but with Ext.D1 on record the courts below found that Ext.P1 was issued by the petitioner. That finding is made on the facts and a proper appreciation of the evidence on record. I do not find reason to interfere with the finding of fact entered by the courts below. As I stated dishonour of the cheque for insufficiency of funds, service of statutory notice and failure of petitioner to pay the amount in spite of such notice are proved. In the circumstance conviction of petitioner requires no interference. 3. Learned Magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and directed her to pay Crl.R.P.No.1471 of 2010 : 3 : compensation of Rs.60,000/-. There was also a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month. Appellate court modified the sentence as fine of Rs.61,000/- and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. It was directed that out of the fine amount if realised, Rs.60,000/- will be paid to respondent No.1 as compensation. Learned counsel request that petitioner may be granted six months' time to deposit the fine in the trial court. He states that petitioner is unable to raise the amount immediately. Having regard to the circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined to grant four (4) months' time from this day to deposit the fine in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court. Resultantly this revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Petitioner is granted four months' time from this day to deposit the fine awarded by the appellate court in the trial court. Until then, execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will remain in abeyance. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-