IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 84 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRA.628/2005 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR ST.556/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------ BAIJA MOHAN, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O.P.R.MOHAN, PANDARI HOUSE, CHEMBUCHIRA.P.O, KODAKARA (VIA), THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV RESPONDENTS: REPSONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS ------------- 1. E.P.NANDAKUMAR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN, ELENTHOLIL HOUSE, PULLUR, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR . BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P.No.84 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th 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.50,000/-. It bears the date 05.01.02. The petitioner now faces a sentence of imprisonment till rising of court. There is a further direction to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C and in default to undergo s.i for a period of 15 days. 2. Signature in the cheque is admitted. Notice of demand though duly received and acknowledged, did not admittedly evoke any response. In the course of trial, a contention was raised that the cheque was not handed over for the due discharge of any legally enforcible debt/liability, but was handed over to a financier as security for a loan availed by the husband of the petitioner from the said financier. 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.84 of 2008 2 4. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned concurrent judgments. 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 and conviction on merits. The learned counsel only prays that leniency may be shown and the petitioner may be given reasonable further time to raise and pay the amount and thus avoid the default sentence. No other contentions are raised. 5. Having gone through the impugned concurrent judgments, I reckon that as an informed and fair stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The impugned verdict of guilty and conviction are found to be absolutely reasonable and unexceptionable. Even though a period of 6 years has elapsed from the date of the cheque, the petitioner is now obliged to pay only the actual cheque amount as compensation. I do not, in these circumstances, find any merit in the prayer for any further leniency or for time to make the payment. However, I am satisfied that the petitioner can be granted breathing time till 29.02.08 to make the payment and avoid the default sentence. 6. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed, but with the observation that the petitioner shall have time till Crl.R.P.No.84 of 2008 3 29.02.08 to make the payment and avoid the default sentence. The sentence shall not be executed till 29.02.08. On or before 01.03.08, the petitioner shall appear and his sureties shall produce him before the learned Magistrate for execution of the impugned sentence. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/