IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 24 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRA.579/2006 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOTTAYAM CC.618/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ERATTUPETTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- NAUSHAD K.I. ,KURUMULAMTHADATHIL HOUSE VATTAKAYAM BHAGAM, ERATTUPETTA PO,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE ---------------------------------- 1. T.A.SHIHAB, THALAPALIL HOUSE NADACKAL PO ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P.No.24 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I Act. There are 2 cheques involved. The total amount covered by the two cheques is Rs.41,752/-. The cheques bear the date 31.03.2004. The petitioner now faces a sentence of imprisonment till rising of court. There is a direction to pay the actual cheque amount of Rs.41,752/- as compensation and in default to undergo s.i for a period of two months. 2. Signature in the cheque is admitted. Handing over of the cheque is also admitted. Notice of demand was not received and was returned unserved. No defence evidence was adduced. The plea raised was that the cheque was handed over as security. 3. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that the complainant has succeeded in establishing all ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Accordingly they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments. Crl.R.P.No.24 of 2008 2 4. The petitioner has come up in revision. Called upon to explain the nature of challenge which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner only submits that leniency may be shown to the petitioner. Leniency to the extent possible appears to have been already shown in favour of the petitioner by the courts below. He has been sentenced only to undergo imprisonment till rising of court and to pay the actual cheque amount as compensation. The default sentence imposed also appears to be absolutely justified and lenient. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that a short breathing time may be granted to the petitioner to make the payment and avoid the default sentence. I am of opinion that it will be absolutely unfair to the complainant to compel him to wait any longer for the relief to which he is entitled. I am not persuaded to agree that the petitioner deserves to be granted any longer further period of time to make the payment and avoid the default sentence. However, I am satisfied that a short further period - till the end of this month, can be granted to the petitioner to make the payment and avoid the default sentence. Crl.R.P.No.24 of 2008 3 6. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed, but with the observation that the petitioner shall have time till 31.01.08 to appear before the learned Magistrate and serve the sentence imposed on him. The petitioner shall appear and the sureties shall produce him before the learned Magistrate on 01.02.08 for execution of the sentence imposed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- Crl.R.P.No.24 of 2008 4