IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2413 OF 2009() ------------------------------------------------- CRA.496/2008 OF SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM ST.141/2007 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHENGANACHERRY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S) - APPELLANT - ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------- NANDA KUMAR O.K. (SASI) SUDARSHANA, PAIPPAR P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN RESPONDENT(S) - RESPONDENTS - COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.E. JOSEPHKUNJU, PROPRIETOR, TRADE CENTRE, PALA PATTARA HOUSE, MATTOM, CHANGANACHERRY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED 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 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2413 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of July, 2009 O R D E R -------------- This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Kottayam in Crl.Appeal No.496 of 2008 confirming conviction of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but modifying sentence. 2. According to respondent No.1, petitioner issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 2.3.2005 for discharge of a liability arising in a business transaction. The cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Exts.P2, P3 and P7. Respondent No.1 issued notice to petitioner intimating dishonour and demanding payment. Issue and service of notice are proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Exhibit P6 shows that though intimation was given to petitioner he did not claim the registered notice and it was returned unclaimed. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as P.W.1 and stated that he is engaged in business of tread rubber, petitioner purchased tread rubber from him on credit for the sum of Rs.54,656/- and for the said amount issued the cheque. Petitioner claimed that he had no business transaction with respondent No.1 but a cheque was given in signed blank form as security. Courts below observed that if petitioner had no transaction with respondent CRL. R.P. No.2413 of 2009 -: 2 :- No.1 there was no occasion for him to give a signed blank as security. Petitioner did not adduce evidence or bring out circumstances to prove or probabilise his case. There is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1. It is in the circumstances that courts below found in favour of due execution of cheque. I find no reason to interfere with that. 3. Appellate court modified the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. Sentence of fine and default sentence provided by learned magistrate were confirmed. There is no reason to interfere with the sentence as modified and confirmed by the appellate court. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel that in connection with an accident case petitioner has been taken to custody on 28.7.2009 and in view of pendency of warrant in this case petitioner is being produced before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Changanassery. Counsel requested time to deposit the fine in the trial court. Counsel submits that petitioner is unable to raise the amount immediately. Having regard to the circumstances stated by counsel, I am inclined to grant time till 28.10.2009 to deposit fine in the trial court. Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is CRL. R.P. No.2413 of 2009 -: 3 :- granted time till 28.10.2009 to deposit fine in the trial court. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 29.10.2009 in case fine as aforesaid is not deposited. It is directed that if petitioner is taken to custody in connection with the case on hand he shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained otherwise treating that custody of petitioner as sufficient compliance with the direction to suffer substantive sentence as modified by the appellate court. Issue copy today itself. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv