IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2507 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.434/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KOTTAYAM CC.356/2004 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- P G SASI PUTHENMALIYIL HOUSE MUTTAMBALAM P O KOTTAYAM BY ADV. SRI.JINU JOSEPH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ---------- --------------- 1. V J RAJU VALAYAMKODU HOUSE THELLAKOM P O KOTTAYAM 2. STATE OF KERAL REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2507 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 06th 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 judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), K in Criminal appeal No.434 of 2008 confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.three lakhs from him and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 09-06-2004 for the said amount. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds is proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Respondent No.1 issued statutory notice to the petitioner in his residential address and address of work place. Notice issued in the address of work place was served. Notice issued in the residential address was returned unclaimed. There is no dispute regarding service of statutory notice on petitioner . Ext.P8 is his reply. According to the petitioner he had some money transaction with respondent No.1. In connection with that signed blank cheque was given. That liability was discharged but the cheque has been misused. Courts below found in favour of due Crl.R.P.No.2507 of 2009 2 execution of the cheque. That finding is under challenge in this revision. 3. So far as execution of the cheque is concerned there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.1. Petitioner does not dispute that he had money transaction with respondent No.1 and it was in connection with that, the cheque was given to respondent No.1. There is no evidence to show that the liability was discharged as claimed by petitioner. Apart from sending reply and making certain suggestions to respondent No.1 which he denied, there is nothing on record to show that respondent No.1 got a signed blank cheque leaf as contended by petitioner. Courts below after considering the evidence found in favour of due execution of the cheque. There is little reason to differ from that finding. 4. Learned Additional Sessions Judge while confirming sentence of fine of Rs.310000/- with default sentence has modified the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. I find no reason to interfere with the sentence. It is requested by learned counsel that petitioner may be granted six months' time to deposit the fine. Learned counsel states that on account of financial difficulties petitioner is unable to raise the entire amount immediately. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel, petitioner is granted time till 30-12-2009 to deposit the fine. Resultantly this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is Crl.R.P.No.2507 of 2009 3 granted time till 30.12.2009 to deposit the fine. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31-12-2009 to receive the sentence. Execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance till 31-12-2009. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/