IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2009 / 29TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2713 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.151/2007 of ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOTTAYAM ST.384/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------ RAJAMMA, KAITHALAVEL PARAMBIL HOUSE, PARIYARAM P.O., PUTHUPALLY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SMT.MINI ELIZABETH GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE -------------------------- 1. JIBU M.K., KANIYAMKULAM HOUSE, MANGANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2713 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2009. ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in the revision which is not prejudicial to him. Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. 2. Petitioner is challenging the concurrent finding against him regarding due execution of a cheque for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. He faced trial in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kottayam in S.T.No.384 of 2006 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.45,000/- from him and issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 25.11.2005 for discharge of that debt. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Ext.P2. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P3 to P5. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and testified to his case. According to the petitioner, she borrowed Rs.5,000/- from respondent No.1 and gave a signed blank cheque. She repaid that amount with interest of Rs.750/- but the cheque has been misused. Petitioner did not adduce any evidence in support of that contention. Petitioner did not reply to the statutory notice. Nothing is brought out to disbelieve the evidence of PW1. It is in these circumstances that courts below Crl.R.P.No.2713/2009 2 found in favour of due execution of the cheque. On going through the judgments under challenge and hearing learned counsel I do not find reason to interfere with the conviction of petitioner. 3. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. There is a direction for payment of compensation of Rs.45,000/- to respondent No.1 and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Appellate court modified the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court and sentenced petitioner to pay fine of Rs.45,000/- with a default sentence of imprisonment for two months. Having regard to the nature of offence and the amount involved I find no reason to interfere with the sentence as modified by the appellate court, at the instance of petitioner . 4. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted five months’ time to deposit fine since petitioner is in a financially difficult situation and is unable to raise the amount immediately. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel and considering the amount involved, I am inclined to grant time to the petitioner till 19.1.2010 to deposit the fine. Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 19.1.2010 to deposit fine in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 21.1.2010 to Crl.R.P.No.2713/2009 3 receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks