IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2009 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1697 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.574/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT(SPECIAL), KOTTAYAM CC.71/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(MOBILE), KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------ K.K. PRASAD, S/O. KUTTAPPAN, AGED 46 YEARS, THIRUVARPU, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE -------------------------- 1. R. RADHAMONY, MAMPALLIPATHIL, KILIROOR POST, THIRUVARPU, KOTTAYAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1697 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th 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 and which will not prejudice to her. 2. This revision is in challenge of the concurrent findings entered by courts below as to the petitioner executing Ext.P1, cheque dated 13.9.2004 for Rs.50,000/- for discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability, failing to pay the amount within the statutory period inspite of dishonour intimation and demand and thereby committing the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act). According to respondent No.1, petitioner issued the cheque for the discharge of liability. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and testified to her case. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds is proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Issue and service of notice are proved by Exts.P4 to P6. The finding of the courts below on these matters is not challenged in this revision. Challenge is as regards the due execution of the cheque. Contention raised by the petitioner in the trial court is that he had borrowed only Rs.10,000/- from respondent No.1 and at that time he issued a signed blank cheque which was misused. Petitioner did not however make any Crl.R.P.No.1697/2009 2 attempt to adduce evidence to prove or probabilise the same. He did not reply to the notice served on him intimating dishonour and demanding payment of amount. In these circumstances courts below found in favour of due execution of the cheque. On consideration of all aspects I do not find reason to interfere with that finding and the conviction. 3. Learned magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and payment of Rs.50,000/- as compensation. In appeal the sentence was modified as fine of Rs.50,000/-. Petitioner was granted three months' time to deposit fine. Learned counsel requested for three months’ further time to deposit fine in the trial court. Having considered the request in the facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to grant two months' time to deposit fine in the trial court. Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted two months’ time to deposit fine in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court. Crl.M.A.No.5169 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks