IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2011 / 28TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1754 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.521/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD CC.28/2008 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - II,OTTAPALAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------- SURESH @ AMARNATH, AGED 51 YEARS MANAGING EDITOR, PULSE OF KERALA RESIDING AT PATHAYAPURAYIL HOUSE, PERUR POST, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE OF KERALA --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CHINNAKUTTAN NAIR N.P (DIED) HIS LEGAL HEIRS ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN CRL.M.P.NO.2755/2010 DTD 09.12.2010 2. RAJALAKSHMI 3. JAYASREE 4. VIJAYASREE 5. RAJESH KUMAR 6. SREEJA (ALL ARE RESIDING AT ALANTHATTIL HOUSE AKALUR P.O, PERUR, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD 7. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLICE PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: dmb S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1754 OF 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of July, 2011 ORDER The accused convicted of the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the N.I Act), concurrently, by the two courts below has filed this revision. 2. Challenge raised against the conviction by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is based on the defence taken to resist the prosecution that the cheque was handed over in blank form with signature alone. It is submitted by the learned counsel that such defence in fact amounted to denial of execution of cheque. Other than the evidence of the complainant, who was examined as PW1, no material was placed to hold the due execution of the cheque, but, without noticing the inadequacy of evidence proving the execution of the cheque, to sustain the prosecution, both the courts below have entered the finding on guilt, and convicted the accused for the offence, and it is unsustainable under law, is the submission of the counsel. 3. Going through the judgments rendered by the learned Magistrate and also the learned Sessions Judge, I find no merit in the challenge canvassed by the counsel to assail the conviction, Crl.R.P.No. 1754 OF 2011 2 concurrently, rendered against the accused by the two courts. Whatever be the defence taken by the accused as to issue of the cheque in blank form, the evidence of the complainant who was examined as PW1 was found truthful and trust worthy to the Magistrate, who recorded his testimony. The learned Magistrate had the opportunity to watch his demeanour and deportment while recording his testimony. He was subjected to cross examination by the accused and, evidently, nothing was brought out to doubt the worth of his testimony. The accused did not mount the box and provide an opportunity to the complainant to meet the merit of his defence, that the cheque was issued in blank with signature alone. In the circumstances, the learned Magistrate was fully justified in accepting the case of the complainant to hold the accused guilty of the offence. The learned Sessions Judge after re-appreciating the evidence on record concurring with the view formed by the learned Magistrate confirmed the finding of guilt rendered against the accused. Such being the case, I find the plea raised in the revision to assail the conviction by the accused, lacks merit. Needless to point out the Crl.R.P.No. 1754 OF 2011 3 exercise of revisionary jurisdiction is limited, and a finding on fact is not open to interference unless it is shown to be perverse. Even when two views are possible, if the view taken by the inferior court could be legitimately drawn, then also the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be exercised to interfere with the finding recorded. Such being the position of the law, I find no merit in the challenge raised against the conviction. 4. So far as the sentence imposed against the accused it is seen the learned Session Judge has modified the punishmnet reducing the imprisonment to one day, till rising of the court, retaining the amount of compensation fixed with default term. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has pleaded for extension of four months time to pay off the compensation and thus avoid the default term of imprisonment. The cheque involved in the case was issued as early in 2004. When such be the case, indulgence by extension of time to pay the amount may not be proper. However, taking note of the submissions made by the counsel the revision petitioner is granted one month time from today to pay off the compensation and this avoid the default Crl.R.P.No. 1754 OF 2011 4 term of imprisonment. Irrespective of the extension of time as granted above, he shall appear before the Judicial first Class Magistrate Court-III, Ottpalam, on 23.08.2011 to serve out the substantive term of imprisonment of one day, till rising of the court, and to report the payment of compensation. In default of such appearance and non payment of compensation the learned Magistrate shall take appropriate steps to execute the sentence. The learned Magistrate is also directed to keep in abeyance the execution of the warrant if any, issued against the accused for a period of one month, the extended period provided under this order for payment of compensation. The revision is disposed of with the above directions. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE. dmb