IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2455 of 2009 ------------------------------ CRA.158/2009 of CC.2025/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOLENCHERRY .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED. -------------------------------------------------------------- P.K.JOSE, S/O.KURIAKOSE AGED 48, PANTHALANGAL VEEDU KOLENCHERY PO, AIKKARANADU VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.S.SREEDEV RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHAJI K ABRAHAM, KAREEKATTIL VEEDU, KOLENCHERY PO, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.S. HRITHWIK. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: app/- THOMAS.P.JOSEPH, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl. R.P.No.2455 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2009 O R D E R This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc)-II, Ernakulam in Crl.Appeal No.158 of 2009 confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'the Act'). Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order, I propose to pass in this revision which is not prejudicial to respondent No.1. 2. According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.64,000/- (Rupees Sixty four thousand only) from him undertaking to repay the same within three months and on demanding repayment issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 30.12.2005 for the said sum of Rs.64,000/-. That cheque on presentation was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Ext.P2. Issue and service of statutory Crl. R.P.No.2455 of 2009 2 notice on petitioner are proved by Exts.P3 and P5. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and stated about the transaction leading to execution of the cheque. He admitted that after filing of the complaint, petitioner paid Rs.30,000/- to him on 30.10.2006 evidenced by Ext.P6 which is the carbon copy of receipt issued to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he had borrowed only Rs.30,000/- and the entire amount was paid. Courts below did not accept that contention of petitioner. 3. So far as execution of the cheque is concerned, there is evidence of respondent No.1. Ext.P6 also shows that the total amount payable by petitioner was Rs.64,000/- out of which Rs.30,000/- was paid to respondent No.1 on 30.10.2006. In the light of Ext.P6 also, contention of petitioner that only Rs.30,000/- was borrowed cannot be accepted. Moreover, petitioner has not replied to the statutory notice served on him. In the circumstances there is no reason to interfere with conviction of petitioner. Crl. R.P.No.2455 of 2009 3 4. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. There was a direction for payment of compensation of Rs.34,000/- to respondent No.1 with a default sentence of imprisonment for one month. Appellate court modified the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. Compensation was converted as fine and default sentence of imprisonment for one month was provided. Having regard to the nature of offence and amount involved I find no reason to interfere with the substantive sentence, direction for payment of fine and the default sentence as modified by the appellate court, at the instance of petitioner. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted six months time to deposit the fine. According to the learned counsel, petitioner is not able to raise the amount immediately on account of financial difficulties. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined to grant time to deposit the fine. Crl. R.P.No.2455 of 2009 4 Resultantly this revision fails. It is dismissed Petitioner is granted time till 30.12.2009 to deposit the fine in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31.12.2009 to receive the sentence. Execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance till that day. THOMAS.P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. app/-