IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 47 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRA.320/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA CC.926/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, CHERTHALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ K.S.ANIL KUMAR, AGED 40, AANANDAMANDIRAM (KARUVELITHARAYIL), MAYITHARA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.DIPU JAMES RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ----------------------------------------------- 1. PIOUS JOHN, AGED 50, ANCHUTHARA, POOCHACKAL P.O., CHERTHALA (MANAGING PARTNER, ANCHUTHARA CITS & FINANCIERS). 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SENIOR STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 47 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of January, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The cheque is for an amount of Rs.60,000/- It bears the date 28.7.2004. The petitioner faces the sentence of imprisonment till rising of Court. There is a further direction to pay an amount of Rs. 60,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of three months. 2. The complainant examined himself as PW1. Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. The accused did not adduce any defence evidence. The contention that was raised before the court below is that the cheque was handed over as security and the entire liability has been discharged. No evidence whatsoever was adduced in support of that theory. Notice of demand was returned unclaimed. -2- 3. The courts below, in these circumstances, concurrently came to the conclusion that the complainant has succeeded in establishing all ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Accordingly they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments. 3. Called upon to explain the nature of challenge which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner only prays that some further time may be granted to the petitioner so that the petitioner can raise the amount, pay the same and avoid the default sentence. 4. I have perused the impugned judgments. I am satisfied that the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence is absolutely justified and does not warrant any interference on merits. In the absence of challenge on any specific ground, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail. 5. The cheque was issued in the year 2004. The prosecution was initiated in 2004. Judgment by the trial court was pronounced on 28.3.2007. Appellate judgment was rendered on 29.9.2007. Maximum -3- leniency has already been shown by the learned appellate Judge. I find absolutely no merit in the prayer made for any long further time for making the payment. However, I am satisfied that the petitioner can be granted time till 29.2.2008 to make the payment and avoid default sentence. 5. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed, but with the directions/observation that the impugned sentence against the petitioner shall not be executed till 29.2.2008. On or before 1.3.2008 the petitioner shall appear, and his sureties shall produce him, before the learned Magistrate for execution of the impugned sentence. (R. BASANT) Judge tm