IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2008 / 9TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 189 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRA.42/2007 of MANJERI DIVISION (ADHOC-II, MANJERI) ST.629/2004 of THE J.F.C.M, TIRUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------ SAINUL ABDEEN, S/O.HAMEED “SHAMILA MANZIL”, T.C.48/891, SWAGATH NAGAR, P.O.NANACAUD, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV.SRI.R.V.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------- 1. ABDUL NAZAR.M, S/O.K.MOHAMMED KUNHU, `FOUSIYA VILLA', TRIKANDIYUR AMSOM, THEKKUM MURI.P.O. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2008 ALONG WITH CRRP.NO.191 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P.Nos.189 and 191 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of January, 2008 ORDER These revision petitions are filed by the common petitioner aggrieved by the concurrent verdicts of guilty, convictions and sentences imposed on the petitioner in 2 separate prosecutions, both under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and both initiated by the same complainant/1st respondent herein. 2. The cheques are for an amount of Rs.50,000/- each. They bear the dates 3.11.03 and 21.10.03. In both cases the petitioner faces sentence of imprisonment till rising of court. There is a further direction in each case to pay the actual cheque amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C and in default to undergo S.I for a period of 2 months. 3. Signatures in the cheques are admitted. Handing over of the cheques after affixing signatures is also admitted. But the contention raised is that the cheques were handed over not to the complainant for the due discharge of any legal enforceable debt/liability, but were issued to another person as security in a different financial transaction. The said liability had been discharged, but the cheques were not returned. Those cheques Crl.R.P.Nos.189 and 191 of 2008 2 have been misused and presented through PW1, a friend of that person to him the cheques were allegedly handed over. Notices of demand though duly received and acknowledged, did not admittedly evoke any response. No defence evidence was adduced by the petitioner in both cases. 4. 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. 5. 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 does not strain to assail the verdict of guilty, conviction, sentences imposed or the direction for payment of compensation and the default sentence. The learned counsel makes the short prayer that the petitioner may be given a short further time to raise and pay the amount of compensation and thus avoid the default sentence. 6. I have gone through the impugned judgments. The verdicts of guilty and convictions do appear to me to be absolutely justified and unexceptionable. In the absence of Crl.R.P.Nos.189 and 191 of 2008 3 challenge on any specific grounds, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail. 7. Coming to the question of sentence, I do note that leniency and indulgence have been shown to the extent possible to the petitioner by the appellate court. The petitioner faces the sentence of imprisonment till rising of court and direction to pay the actual cheque amounts as compensation. The default sentence imposed is also absolutely fair and reasonable. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner makes only one request. He prays that a long further time may be granted to the petitioner to raise and pay the compensation amount. I find no merit in that prayer at all. I am not satisfied that the petitioner is entitled for any long further period of time. However, in my anxiety to ensure that the petitioner is given opportunity to avoid the default sentence, I am satisfied that it can be directed that the impugned sentence shall not be executed till 29.02.08. 9. In the result, this Crl.R.P is dismissed, but with the observation that the impugned sentences imposed on the petitioner in both cases shall not be executed till 29.02.08. On or before that date, the petitioner must make the payment. The petitioner shall appear and his sureties shall produce him before Crl.R.P.Nos.189 and 191 of 2008 4 the learned Magistrate on or before 01.03.08 for execution of the sentences imposed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-