IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3234 of 2008() ------------------------------------------ CRA. NO.152/2005 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. C.C. NO.26/05 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. ..... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------- K.R.HIRANMAI DEVI, KERALA STATE TRANSPORT WORKERS' CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO.133, NEAR SASTHA TEMPLE, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.MOHANAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------------------- 1. C.SATHEESH KUMAR, S/O.CHELLAPPAN NADAR, B.C.N.COTTAGE, KADAVATTARAM DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZER THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 3234 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008 ORDER Petitioner was convicted concurrently for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Learned Magistrate sentenced her to simple imprisonment for four months in addition to a compensation of Rs.1,58,000/-. In appeal, learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for three months. The revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. The argument of learned counsel is that the cheque was not issued towards the repayment of an existing liability and courts below did not properly appreciate the evidence and in such circumstances, conviction and sentence is not sustainable. It was also argued that in any case the sentence awarded is excessive and considering the financial conditions of petitioner, reasonable time of six months is to be granted for payment of the fine amount. 3. The learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge, on CRRP 3234/2008 2 appreciation of evidence of first respondent as PW1 with Exts.P1 to P8 found that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by petitioner towards discharge of pre-existing liability and when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Petitioner, when questioned under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure contended that she borrowed only Rs.25,000/- and at that time issued a blank cheque and making use of the blank cheque, Ext.P1 cheque was created and got it dishonoured and complaint was filed and therefore she has not committed the offence. Learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge found that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 and the case of petitioner that she had issued a blank cheque is not substantiated. 4. On going through the judgments of courts below, I do not find any reason to interfere with the factual findings of courts below that Ext.P1 cheque was issued towards discharge of existing liability. 5. The fact that Ext.P1 cheque was presented within the statutory period and it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and first respondent sent a notice demanding the amount covered by the cheque within the statutory period and petitioner CRRP 3234/2008 3 did not pay the amount in spite of the notice are conclusively proved by evidence. Therefore conviction of petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I Act is perfectly correct and warrants no interference. 6. Then the only question is with regard to the sentence. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court in addition to a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- which exactly is the amount covered by the cheque. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the sentence also. Learned counsel then submitted that because of financial conditions petitioner may be granted six months time to pay the fine amount. Considering the circumstances pointed out by learned counsel, petitioner is granted six months time to pay the fine amount. Revision is disposed, confirming the conviction and sentence but granting six months time to pay the fine amount. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-