IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2747 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.698/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (SPECIAL), KOTTAYAM ST.1033/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(MOBILE), KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- N.PRAKASH, S/O. NARAYANAN, VELAMMATTU HOUSE, AMAYANNUR KARA, AYARKUNNAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, THAZHATHANGADI BRANCH, KOTTAYAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S.HRITHWIK FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2747 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009. ORDER Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.1. Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in the revision which is not prejudicial to it. 2. Against the concurrent finding regarding execution of a cheque for discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability, petitioner has come up in revision. Petitioner faced trial in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II (Mobile), Kottayam in S.T.No.1033 of 2006 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). According to respondent No.2, petitioner owed Rs.83,500/- to it and for repayment of that amount issued issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 15.9.2006. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Ext.P2. Respondent No.2 issued notice to the petitioner but according to the former, the latter evaded notice and hence it was returned unclaimed. Issue and return of notice as aforesaid are proved by Exts.P3 to P5. PW1, Manager gave evidence on behalf of respondent No.2. Ext.P6 is the resolution authorising filing of the complaint. PW1 stated that in the loan transaction with petitioner, Rs.83,500/- is due to respondent No.2 and for payment of that amount petitioner issued the cheque. Petitioner did not have any specific case as to the execution Crl.R.P.No.2747/2009 2 of the cheque. He only said that when the loan was availed a cheque was given as security. On going through the judgments under challenge I find there was no serious challenge to the evidence of PW1 as to the transaction leading to the execution of the cheque. It is in these circumstances that courts below found in favour of due execution of the cheque. I do not find reason to interfere with that finding. 3. Appellate court has modified sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court and fine of Rs.83,500/-. A default sentence of imprisonment for two months is also provided. The further direction is that the fine if realised will be paid to respondent No.2 as compensation. Having regard to the nature of offence and the amount involved there is no reason to interfere with the sentence as modified or the default sentence imposed by the appellate court . 4. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted five months’ time to deposit fine in the trial court. Learned counsel states that on account of financial difficulties petitioner is unable to raise the amount immediately. Having regard to the amount involved and circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined to grant time to the petitioner till 20.1.2010 to deposit fine in the trial court. Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is Crl.R.P.No.2747/2009 3 granted time till 20.1.2010 to deposit fine in the trial court. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 22.1.2010 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks