IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 97 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRA.323/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KOZHIKODE ST.105/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-V, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- K.MEHABOOB, S/O.K.HASSANKUTTY, AGED 51 YEARS, PARTNER, KHK BUILDINGS, ANNIE HALL ROAD, CALICUT-2. BY ADV. SMT.T.KAMALA MENON RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE ---------------------------------- 1. V.G.THOMAS, S/O.K.M.GEORGE, KARIMBIL HOUSE, P.O.FEROKE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Crl. R.P. No. 97 OF 2008 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 17th 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. The cheque is for an amount of Rs.1,25,000/-. It bears the date 11.10.2004. The petitioner now faces a sentence of imprisonment till rising of court. He is further directed to pay the actual cheque amount of Rs.1,25,000/- as compensation under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. Signature in the cheque is admitted. That the accused signed and handed it over to another is also admitted. The contention raised was that the cheque was not handed over to the complainant for the due discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability but was handed over to Crl.R.P.No.97/08 : 2 : one Avarankutty, a relative of the accused, as security and the said cheque had somehow reached the hands of the complainant. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to P4. The accused examined himself as DW1 and another witness as DW2 in support of his plea that there was a person ie, the said Avarankutty. 3. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that the complainant has succeeded in establishing all ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Accordingly, they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments. 4. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned concurrent judgments. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge, which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly it appears to me, does not strain to assail the verdict of guilty and conviction on merits. The learned counsel for the petitioner only prays that some Crl.R.P.No.97/08 : 3 : leniency and indulgence may be shown and the petitioner may be granted 5 months' further time to pay the compensation amount and avoid the default sentence. No other contentions are raised. 5. I have considered the impugned concurrent judgments. The impugned verdict of guilty and conviction are found to be absolutely justified and unexceptionable. In the absence of challenge on any specific grounds, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail. The sentence imposed, referred above, is also absolutely fair and just. Only the actual amount of the cheque has been directed to be paid as compensation. The default sentence imposed is only simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The complainant has been compelled to fight two rounds of legal battle by now and to wait from 2004 for the redressal of his grievances. I find no merit or grace in the prayer for any long further period of time to make payment. However, I am satisfied that the petitioner can be granted breathing time to Crl.R.P.No.97/08 : 4 : raise and pay the amount and thus avoid the default sentence. 6. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed but with the observations/directions that the petitioner shall have time till 29.2.08 to raise and pay the compensation amount and avoid the default sentence. Till that date, the sentence shall not be executed. 7. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate and his sureties shall produce him before the learned Magistrate on or before 1.3.08 for execution of the impugned sentence. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks