IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2009 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1556 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.352/2007 of I ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM ST.506/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/ACCUSED ---------------------------- 1. M/S. NANDAVANAM TIMES, NANDAVANAM JUNCTION, COURT ROAD, CHENGANNUR, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, RAJU M. THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS. 2. RAJU M. THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. NANDAVANAM TIMES, COURT ROAD, CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN SRI.P.V.BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AN STATE -------------------------- 1. M/S. ALMONARD PVT. TLD., REGIONAL OFFICE XLI/1753, TOWN HALL ROAD, AHAMED CHAMBERS, ERNAKULAM NORTH, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER/POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, P.L. DAVIS. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1556 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May, 2009. ORDER Public prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to make. 2. Heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor. 3. This revision is in challenge of judgment of First Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam in Crl.Appeal No.352 of 2007 confirming the conviction of petitioners for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”) but modifying the substantive sentence awarded to petitioner No.2 as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. 4. Case arose on a private complaint filed by respondent No.1 alleging that petitioner No.1 owed Rs.41,330/- to it and for the discharge of that liability issued Ext.P2, cheque dated 20.7.2004. That cheque was presented for encashment but it was dishonoured as it exceeds arrangement. Respondent No.1 issued notice to the petitioners intimating dishonour and demanding payment of the amount. Petitioners did not respond and hence, the complaint. Dishonour of cheque for the abovesaid reason is proved by Ext.P4. Issue and service of notice are proved by Exts.P5, P7 and P7(a). PW1, power of attorney Crl.R.P.No.1556/2009 2 holder and Regional Manager of respondent No.1 has given evidence regarding the transaction which culminated in Ext.P2. It was contended in the trial court that PW1 is not a witness to execution of the cheque and hence his evidence is of no use. Learned magistrate found that due execution of the cheque has been proved. That has been confirmed by the appellate court also. On the facts and circumstances of the case I find no reason to interfere with that finding. Conviction of the petitioners therefore do not require interference on any ground whatsoever. 5 So far as sentence is concerned, petitioner No.1 was ordered to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and petitioner No.2 was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay fine of Rs.36,330/-. Appellate court modified the substantive sentence awarded to petitioner No.2 as simple imprisonment till rising of the court and rest of the sentence was confirmed. Learned counsel for petitioners at this stage sought for three months' time to deposit the fine and compensation. In the facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to grant two months' time to the petitioners to deposit the fine and compensation. Crl.R.P.No.1556/2009 3 Resultantly, this revision is disposed of granting two months' time to the petitioners to deposit the fine and compensation as directed by the courts below. Petitioner No.2 shall surrender in the trial court on 25.7.2009 to receive the sentence. Crl.M.A.No.4698 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks