IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2009 / 27TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2665 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.639/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM ST.1116/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(MOBILE), KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- P.SUDHAKARAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN, S.E.V.(KELTRON), SWITCHING EQUIPMENT UNIT, KALATHOOR, MAVILA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------------------------------- 1. K.V.ABRAHAM, S/O.CHERIAN, KOLLAKUNNEL HOUSE, CHAMPAKARA P.O., KARUKACHAL, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI C S HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2665 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 18th day of August 2009 ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in this revision which is not prejudicial to him. Heard counsel for petitioner and public prosecutor who took notice for respondent No.2. 2. This revision is in challenge of the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Kottayam in Criminal Appeal No.639 of 2008 confirming conviction but modifying the sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to respondent No.1, petitioner issued Exts.P1 and P2, cheques dated 11-01-2006 and 15-03-2006 for Rs.25000/- each for the discharge of the debt of Rs.50000/-. Those cheques were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Exts.P3 and P4. That respondent No.1 served statutory notice on petitioner is seen from Exts.P5 to P7. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and stated that petitioner borrowed Rs.50000/- from him and for repayment of that amount issued the cheques. Petitioner contended that he borrowed Rs.50000/- from the son of respondent No.1 and for repayment of that amount, two cheques were given. According to him, he returned Rs.10000/- but signed blank cheques were misused. 3. It is not disputed that Exts.P1 and P2 are cheques drawn by Crl.R.P.No.2665 of 2009 2 and on the account of petitioner. His contention is that his transaction was with the son of respondent No.1 to whom the cheques were given. There is no dispute regarding the amount borrowed. Though petitioner contended that his transaction was with the son of respondent No.1 and that he returned Rs.10000/- there is no evidence for either. There is no reason or circumstance to think so. Respondent No.1 denied the suggestion in that line. Petitioner has also not replied to the statutory notice served on him. In the circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the courts below regarding due execution of the cheque. 4. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and directed payment of compensation of Rs.50000/- without providing any default sentence. Appellate court modified the sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court and fine of Rs.50000/- with default sentence of imprisonment for one month. It has directed that the fine if realised will be given to respondent No.1 as compensation. Having regard to the nature of the offence and object of legislation there is no reason to interfere with the sentence as modified by the appellate court or default sentence at the instance of petitioner. It is requested that petitioner may be granted three months' time to deposit fine. It is stated by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is facing financial difficulties. Having regard Crl.R.P.No.2665 of 2009 3 to the circumstances stated by learned counsel and the amount involved I am inclined to grant the request for time. Resultantly this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 17-11-2009 to deposit fine in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 19-11-2009 to receive the sentence. Execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance till19-11-2009. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/