IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2087 OF 2009() ------------------------------------------- CRA.447/2008 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC), ERNAKULAM CC.949/2005 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S):/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------- K.USHA, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., PALLURUTHY BRANCH, KOCHI-6. BY ADV. SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.M.P.RETHNAM RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. ALPHONSA THOMAS, W/O.GEORGE, KURISINGAL HOUSE, MATTANNCHERRY, KOCHI-2. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S. HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2087 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Petitioner challenges the concurrent finding entered by the courts below that she executed the cheque for discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. Petitioner faced trial in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kochi in C.C. No.948 of 2005 on a complaint preferred by respondent No.1. She alleged that petitioner borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- from her and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 5.7.2005. Respondent No.1 presented the cheque for encashment but it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account of petitioner. On getting dishonour intimation respondent No.1 issued statutory notice to petitioner intimating dishonour and demanding payment of the amount. Petitioner did not pay the amount. Hence the complaint. 2. So far as execution of the cheque is concerned respondent No.1 has given evidence as P.W.1. She stated that petitioner borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- and issued the cheque for repayment of that amount. According to the petitioner she had borrowed only Rs.30,000/- from respondent No.1 and given signed blank cheque which was misused. Apart from petitioner merely suggesting to respondent No.1 in that line CRL. R.P. No.2087 of 2009 -: 2 :- which the latter denied no effort was made by petitioner to prove or probabilised her case. It is not disputed that petitioner had financial transaction with respondent No.1 and it was in that connection that petitioner gave the cheque to respondent No.1. Her claim that amount borrowed was only Rs.30,000/- is not proved nor probabilised. Petitioner did not reply to the statutory notice served on her. Courts below accepted the evidence of respondent No.1 as trustworthy. It is not shown that evidence of respondent No.1 is not reliable for any reason. In the circumstances finding of courts below that petitioner issued the cheque for discharge of a legally recoverable debt does not require interference. 3. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and directed her to pay Rs.2,50,000/- as fine. In default of payment simple imprisonment for six months was awarded. It was directed that out of the fine if realised Rs.2,00,000/- shall be given to respondent No.1 as compensation. Appellate court modified sentence as fine of Rs.1,50,000/- and directed that in case of non-payment petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. It was further directed that fine if realised shall be given to respondent No.1 as compensation. Having regard to the nature of the offence and amount involved, there is no reason to interfere with the direction for payment of fine and the default sentence as modified by CRL. R.P. No.2087 of 2009 -: 3 :- the appellate court . 4. Counsel for petitioner requested six months’ time to deposit the fine. Counsel submits that a close relative of petitioner is undergoing treatment for serious illness and hence petitioner is unable to raise the amount immediately. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel and the amount involved, I am inclined to grant five months’ time to the petitioner to deposit fine in the trial court. Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted five months’ time from this day to deposit the fine as ordered by the appellate court. In case petitioner failed to deposit the fine in the trial court as aforesaid she shall appear in the trial court on 2.12.2009 to receive the default sentence. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv