IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2009 / 6TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2789 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.72/2009 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), ALAPPUZHA CC.102/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- V.S.JAGADAMMA,AGED 51 YEARS W/O.T.N.BABU, THYZERRIL HOUSE KALAVOOR PO, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. K.R.MOORTHY, S/O.RAGHAVAN, KIMAPARAMBIL ,PATHIRAPALLY P.O.,ALAPPUZHA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI C S HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2789 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 28th day of August 2009 ORDER This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, (ADHOC) Fast Track No-1, Alappuzha in Criminal Appeal No.72 of 2009 confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”) on a complaint preferred by respondent No.2. He alleged that petitioner borrowed Rs.75,000/- from him on 17-08-2007 and issued cheque dated 17-10-2007 for its repayment. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Ext.P2. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P3 to P5. Petitioner did not reply. Respondent No.2 gave evidence as PW1 and stated to her case. Contention of petitioner is that he had no transaction with respondent No.2 and instead, her husband may have given the signed blank cheque to respondent No.2. Courts below did not accept the contention of petitioner. The concurrent finding is under challenge in this revision. 2. It is not disputed that the evidence of respondent No.2 as PW1 was not cross examined. Nor did petitioner reply to the statutory notice. What remained is only a suggestion put to respondent No.2 which she denied. It is not disputed that Ext.P1 contain the signature of petitioner and it is drawn on her account. Respondent No.2 has Crl.R.P.No.2789 of 2009 2 given evidence regarding transaction and execution of the cheque which the courts below found no reason to disbelieve. As such no interference is called for with respect to the finding regarding execution of cheque and failure of petitioner to rebut the presumption. 3. In modification of sentence awarded by learned magistrate, appellate court imposed a sentence of fine of Rs.75,000/- with a default sentence of imprisonment for two months. It was directed that the fine if realised will be paid to respondent No.2 as compensation. Having regard to the nature of the offence and the amount involved there is no reason to interfere with the sentence as modified and default sentence imposed by the appellate court, at the instance of petitioner. Learned counsel has requested six months' time to deposit the fine in the trial court. It is stated that petitioner finds it difficult to raise the amount immediately and that liability was incurred by her husband. Having regard to the amount involved as well as the circumstances stated by learned counsel, I am inclined to grant time till 21-01-2010 to deposit the fine in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court. Resultantly this revision petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 21-01-2010 to deposit fine in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court. In case of default, petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 23-01-2010 to receive the Crl.R.P.No.2789 of 2009 3 default sentence. Execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance till 23-01-2010. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/