0 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2009 / 23RD ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2260 of 2009 ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03/04/2009 IN CC.181/07 IN CRA.677/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- SAJI.C.K., CHEMPANKULATHU HOUSE, THIDANAD P.O. BY ADV. SRI.SEBASTIAN DAVIS RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTAND THE STATE: ------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT. 2. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, ERATTUPETTA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR : SRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2260 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 14th day of July 2009 ORDER On a concurrent finding entered by the courts below petitioner stands convicted for offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Case of respondent No.2 is that petitioner availed loan from its Erattupetta branch and for repayment of the sum of Rs.56,654/- due as on 08/02/07 he issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 08/01/07. Dishonour of that cheque for insufficiency of funds is proved by Ext.P2. Service of notice on petitioner intimating dishonour and demanding payment of the amount is proved by Exts.P3 to P5. PW1, branch manager of respondent No.2 has given evidence regarding transaction leading to execution of the cheque. Petitioner could not discredit that evidence of PW1. Petitioner did not even challenge the evidence of PW1 by way of cross examination. Hence, courts below are justified in holding in favour of due execution of the cheque. 2. Learned magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and payment of fine of Crl.R.P.No.2260 of 2009 2 Rs.56684/- with default sentence of imprisonment for two months. Appellate court modified the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court while confirming the sentence of fine and default sentence. I do not find reason to interfere with the sentence as modified and confirmed by the appellate court. 3. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted six months' time to deposit the fine. Learned counsel says that petitioner is placed in financially difficult situation. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel petitioner is granted time till 30-12-09 to deposit the fine. I have dispensed with notice to respondent No.2 as the order I proposed to pass in this revision is not prejudicial to it. Resultantly this revision fails and it is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 30-12-09 to deposit the fine in the trial court. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31-12-09 to receive the sentence. Execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance till 31-12-09. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/