IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 12TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 220 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRA.260/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, KALPETTA CC.276/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, MANANTHAVADY .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ M.K.RAGHAVAN, MUTHIRAKALAYIL HOUSE, B.STREET, MANANTHAVADY. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANTONY JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------ 1. K.V.MATHEW, KANDATHUKUDY, PERUVAKA, MANANTHAVADY. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Crl. R.P. No. 220 OF 2008 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 1st day of February, 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.75,000/-. It bears the date 30.4.1995. The petitioner now faces a sentence of imprisonment till rising of court. There is a further direction to the petitioner under section 357(3) Cr.P.C. to pay an amount of Rs.80,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. Signature in the cheque is admitted. Transaction between the parties and the liability to pay the amount is also admitted. But the contention raised was that not the cheque amount of Rs.75,000/-, but only an amount of Rs.5,000/- is liable to be paid. The complainant examined PWs 1 and 2 and proved Exts.P1 to P7. The accused examined Dws 1 to Crl.R.P.No.220/08 : 2 : 3. 3. This case is of a checked career. The accused was once acquitted. That judgment of acquittal was set aside. The matter was disposed afresh by the trial court. 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 only prays that the petitioner may be granted some further time to make the payment. The petitioner does not want to assail the verdict of guilty, conviction or sentence or the direction to pay compensation amount and the default sentence. 6. Having considered the impugned concurrent judgments, I am satisfied that, that is an informed and fair Crl.R.P.No.220/08 : 3 : stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am satisfied that the verdict of guilty and conviction do not warrant any interference. In the absence of challenge on any specific grounds, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail. 7. The cheque as stated earlier is dated 30.4.1995. I find no merit or grace in the request presently made for any long further period of time. However, I am satisfied that the petitioner can be granted a breathing time to make the payment and avoid the default sentence. 8. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed but with the observations/directions that the sentence shall not be executed till 29.2.08. The petitioner shall have time till that date to pay the amount and thus avoid the default sentence. The petitioner shall appear and his sureties shall produce him before the learned Magistrate on or before 1.3.08 for execution of the sentence. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks