IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2009 / 3RD BHADRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2757 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.328/2006 of I ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA CC.643/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADIMALI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- VALLYAMMAL M., W/O.MUNIYANDI, NIRAPPELVEEDU, BAISONVALLEY TEA COMPANY, POTTANKADU P.O., BAISONVALLEY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. BASIL JOSEPH, MANAGER, HOME SHINE HIRE PURCHASE COMPANY, KOTHAMANGALAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S.HRITHWIK FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2757 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2009. ORDER Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.1. Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in the revision which is not prejudicial to him. 2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha in Crl.Appeal No.328 of 2006 confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). According to respondent No.2, petitioner owed Rs.1,25,000/- to him and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P2, cheque dated 7.1.2005. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Exts.P2, P3 and P8. . Issue and service of statutory notice on petitioner are proved by Exts.P5 to P7. According to the petitioner, she had no transaction with respondent No.2. Instead she purchased a jeep from one Rajesh for Rs.1,55,000/- and paid Rs.33,000/-. She had agreed to pay Rs.25,000/- within one month. Rajesh got two blank cheques from her for availing loan of Rs.90,000/- by hypothicating the vehicle. Petitioner could not pay the sum of Rs.25,000/- as agreed. Thereon Rajesh repossessed the vehicle and agreed to return the cheques. It was not done. One of those cheques has been misused. Courts below found that due Crl.R.P.No.2757/2009 2 execution of the cheque is proved. 3. One contention advanced is that there is no proper representation for the payee, the company. Ext.P1 is the power of attorney executed in favour of PW1, manager of the company. Complaint is filed on behalf of the company by its authorized officer. Hence that contention cannot stand. 4. It is not disputed that Ext.P1 is signed by the petitioner and is drawn on the account maintained by her. PW1 has given evidence that petitioner availed loan from respondent No.2 on hire purchase agreement and received the amount undertaking to pay the amount in thirty instalments. Petitioner paid only upto the sixth instalment and for the balance amount due, petitioner issued the cheque. Though petitioner contended that she had no transaction with respondent No.1 and that Rajesh had agreed to avail loan of Rs.90,000/- for her, there is no evidence in that line. Petitioner has also not replied to the statutory notice served on her. There is nothing brought out in the evidence of PW1 to disbelieve him. Considering the above circumstances courts below found in favour of due execution of the cheque. There is little reason to interfere with that finding. 5. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. There was also a direction for payment of Rs.1,20,000/- by way of compensation to respondent No.1 and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Appellate court modified the sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court and fine of Crl.R.P.No.2757/2009 3 Rs.1,20,000/-. A default sentence of imprisonment for three months was also provided. 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. 6. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted six months’ time to deposit fine in the trial court. It is stated that petitioner is not able to raise the amount immediately due to financial difficulties. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the amount involved, petitioner is granted time till 25.1.2010 to deposit fine in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court. Resultantly this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 25.1.2010 to deposit fine in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 27.1.2010 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any against petitioner will stand in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks