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. 2497 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.36/2008 of ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT(ADHOC), FAST TRACK COURT- III, PATHANAMTHITTA ST.451/2005 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- RETNA RAJAN, S/O.NANUPANICKER, KULATHILE VADAKKETHIL, USHAS BUILDING, KARAKKADU P.O.(VIA), CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. G.VIJAYAMMA, ALUNIKUMTHADATHIL HOUSE, KARACKADU P.O., CHENGANNUR. UD COMPILOR HG DISTRICT OFFICE, ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS, PATHANAMTHITTA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S.HRITHWIK FOR R1. 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.2497 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2009. ORDER Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.1. Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in the revision which is not prejudicial to her. 2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court-III, Pathanamthitta in Crl.Appeal No.36 of 2008 confirming conviction and sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). According to respondent No.2, petitioner borrowed Rs.1,25,000/- from her and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 14.3.2005. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Respondent No.2 gave evidence as PW1 and testified to her case. She stated that amount was paid to petitioner in two instalments of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.75,000/-, respectively. In the course of evidence respondent No.2 admitted that on 30.11.2007 (ie. after filing of the complaint) she received Rs.10,000/- from the petitioner. According to the petitioner respondent No.2 was his surety for a loan he had availed and at that time he had given signed blank cheque as security to respondent No.2. Since he could not pay of the loan Crl.R.P.No.2497/2009 2 the creditor filed a suit against him. In the meantime he paid Rs.65,000/- and then case was withdrawn. But respondent No.2 has misused the cheque. Contention in this revision is that due execution of the cheque is not proved. 3. It is not disputed that Ext.P1, cheque contained signature of petitioner and is drawn on the account maintained by him. It is also not disputed by petitioner that he had handed over the cheque to respondent No.2. According to him it was as security since respondent No.2 was his surety in a loan transaction. Apart from what petitioner suggested to respondent No.2 which the latter denied, there is no evidence to show that the cheque happened to be in the custody of respondent No.2 in the circumstances pleaded by petitioner. He did not even reply to the notice served on him. Courts below found that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.2. On going through the judgments under challenge and hearing learned counsel I find no reason to interfere with the conviction of petitioner. 4. Sentence as imposed by the learned magistrate is one of simple imprisonment till rising of the court and payment of fine of Rs.1,30,000/-. There is also a default sentence of imprisonment for one month. Learned magistrate directed that out of the fine if realised Rs.1,25,000/- will be given to respondent No.2 as compensation. Appellate court did not interfere with the sentence. Considering the nature of offence and the amount involved I do not find reason to interfere with the sentence imposed. 5. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted six months’ time to deposit the fine. He stated that petitioner is not able to raise the Crl.R.P.No.2497/2009 3 amount immediately due to financial difficulties. Having regard to the circumstances stated by learned counsel and considering the amount involved, I am inclined to grant time to the petitioner till 30.12.2009 to deposit fine. Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 30.12.2009 to deposit fine in the trial court. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31.12.2009 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks