IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2403 of 2009 ------------------------------ ST.2238/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ALATHUR CRA.512/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD -------------------------------- REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- VYDYANADHAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN MASTER, KODIKKATTUKAV NAIRTHARAYIL, VADAKKANCHERY AMSOM, DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------- 1. P. SUDEVAN, S/O. PAZHANIMALA, CHUNDAKKATTIL, AYAKKADAMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: C S HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2403 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 29th day of July 2009 ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to make in this revision which is not prejudicial to him. Heard counsel for petitioner and public prosecutor who took notice for respondent No.2. 2. Concurrent finding entered by the courts below as to the due execution of a cheque for discharge of legally enforceable debt/liability is under challenge in this revision at the instance of the accused. According to respondent No.1, petitioner owed Rs.50000/- to him and for the discharge of that liability issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 29-05-2006. Its dishonour for insufficiency of funds is proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 and P5. Ext.P6 is the reply. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and stated that the cheque was issued for discharge of liability arising from a loan transaction. Petitioner claimed that he had borrowed only Rs.10000/- from respondent No.1 and repaid Rs.6000/- balance payable being only Rs.4000/-. The signed blank cheque taken at the time of transaction was misused. Petitioner did not produce any evidence or bring out circumstance to prove or probabilise his defence. Courts below found that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.1. That finding is based on an appreciation of evidence. I do not find anything illegal, irregular or improper calling Crl.R.P.No.2 403 of 2009 2 for interference. 3. Modifying the sentence imposed by learned magistrate, learned Sessions Judge has imposed fine of Rs.55000/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand Only) and default sentence of imprisonment for six months. It was directed that the fine if realised will be given to respondent No.1 as compensation. Having regard to the nature of offence and the amount involved I do not find reason to interfere with the sentence as modified by learned Sessions Judge. 4. It is requested by learned counsel that petitioner may be granted six months' time to deposit the fine. According to the learned counsel, petitioner is working as peon and is unable to raise the amount immediately. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel petitioner is granted time till 30-12-2009 to deposit fine in the trial court. Resultantly this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 30-12-2009 to deposit the fine in the trial court as ordered by learned Sessions Judge. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31-12-2009 to suffer the default sentence in case fine is not deposited within the time aforesaid. Execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance till 31-12-2009. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/