IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1800 of 2011() ------------------------------------------- CRA.NO. 140/2008 of IST ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM ST.NO. 67/2007 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-IV, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------- A.M.SHOUKATHALI, EBIDA MANZIL, LIONS CLUB ROAD, MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JAHANGHEER, GLOB HOUSE, LAWYER COMPOUND, CHINNAKADA, KOLLAM-691 001. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C.NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------ Crl. R.P No. 1800 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2011. O R D E R The Revision is by the accused convicted of the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for short 'NI Act', concurrently, by two inferior courts. 2. The trial Magistrate negativing his plea of not guilty convicted the accused of the offence, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs.1,50,000/- with default term of imprisonment for one month more. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has preferred this revision. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The defence pleaded by the accused that two cheques had been collected by the complainant towards a loan transaction for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- availed from him, and one of such cheques had been used for filing present complaint, though supported by the documentary material tendered in evidence, was not properly appreciated by the Courts below, and as such the Crl. R. P No.1800/2011 -2- conviction imposed according to the counsel, is unsustainable under law. Going through the judgment rendered by the learned Magistrate I find that accused had set up a defence as stated by the counsel in support of his denial of guilt. However, materials tendered by the complainant convincingly proved that the cheque had been duly executed and issued by the accused towards discharge of debt or liability as alleged. The evidence of the complainant examined PW1 who faced searching cross examination was found credible and trustworthy. Learned Magistrate who had the opportunity to watch the demeanour and deportment the complainant found testimony reliable and acceptable. The accused who had canvassed a defence indicated did not mount box to swear in support of his case providing an opportunity to the complainant to cross examine him on the defence pleaded for. Learned Sessions Judge after re- appreciating evidence concurred with the conclusion made by the learned Magistrate over the finding of guilt entered against the accused on the materials placed. When such be the case I find no merit in the challenge canvassed to assail the conviction of the accused contending that his defence was not properly appreciated. Needless to state in exercise of revisionary Crl. R. P No.1800/2011 -3- jurisdiction a finding of fact entered by the inferior court is not open to challenge unless it is shown to be perverse or it could not be legitimately formed on the materials available. So much so, the challenge raised against the conviction by the accused has to be taken note of only for its rejection. 4. So far as the sentence is imposed, against the accused it is seen sufficient leniency has been extended by the learned Sessions Judge in modifying the punishment imposed by the trial Magistrate. Learned counsel for the accused, at this stage, made a request for extension of time to pay off compensation awarded and, thus, avoid the default term of imprisonment. Cheque giving rise to the prosecution of the accused is dated 20-06-2002. When that be the case no further time as requested for the counsel for payment of compensation can be granted. However, taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel in support of the plea for extension of time I grant the revision petitioner two months time to pay the amount. The learned Magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of the sentence for a period of two months from today. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 03-10-2011 to serve out the imprisonment for one day, till the rising of the Court, and also to Crl. R. P No.1800/2011 -4- report the payment of compensation as fixed. In default of his appearance and non payment of compensation, the Magistrate concerned shall take necessary steps to execute the sentence in accordance with law. Revision petition is disposed of Sd/- S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE AMG True copy P.A to Judge