IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2009 / 29TH SRAVANA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2699 OF 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.889/2007 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM ST.391/2007 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHENGANACHERRY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S) - APPELLANT - ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------- JAYACHANDRA BABU, JAYASREE BHAVAN, PERUNNA WEST P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H. RESPONDENT(S) - RESPONDENT -COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.V. JOSEPH, MANAKKALATHIL HOUSE, PERUNNA P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S. HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2699 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20th day of August, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass which is not prejudicial to him. Public Prosecutor took notice for respondent No.2. 2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam in Crl. Appeal No.889 of 2007 confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.28,000/- from him and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 30.7.2004. Dishonour of that for insufficiency of funds is proved by Exts.2 and P3. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as P.W.1 and stated to his case. According to the petitioner he had joined a Kuri run by respondent No.1, prized the same and while receiving the amount issued a cheque. Appellate court in its judgment stated that as per the statement of petitioner under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that cheque was issued for the CRL. R.P. No.2699 of 2009 -: 2 :- sum of Rs.28,000/- to respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 admitted that he had been conducting Kuri in 2002 but denied that petitioner had subscribed to any Kuri. He denied that he had any transaction with petitioner. As to the circumstances under which according to petitioner he handed over the cheque to respondent No.1, there is only the suggestion made to the latter which he denied. Petitioner did not reply to the statutory notice. Nothing was brought out to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.1. As such courts below are justified in holding in favour of due execution of the cheque. I find no reason to interfere with that finding. 4. In modification of the sentence awarded by learned magistrate petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court. He was directed to pay fine of Rs.28,000/- and in default of payment simple imprisonment for one month was also provided. It was directed that fine if realised will be given to respondent No.1 as compensation. Having regard to the nature of offence I find no reason to interfere with the sentence as modified by the appellate court or the default sentence at the instance of petitioner. 5. Learned counsel requested four months’ time to deposit CRL. R.P. No.2699 of 2009 -: 3 :- the fine. It is stated that on account of financial difficulty petitioner is unable to raise the amount immediately. Having regard to the circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined to grant time till 19.12.2009 to deposit fine in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court. Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 18.12.2009 to deposit fine as ordered by the appellate court. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 22.12.2009 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any against petitioner will remain in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv