IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2564 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA 6/2008 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM S.T.NO.133 OF 2007 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-II, CHANGANASSERY REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- M.K.SASI, INDHU BHAVAN, PULINTHANAM JUNCTION, PALACKATHAKIDI P.O., KUNNAMTHANAM, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.N.P.SETHU RESPONDENT(S)/RESPPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE -------------------------- 1. K.T.DEVASIA, KOLATTU (H), THRIKODITHANAM P.O., CHANGANASSERY. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S.HRITHWIK FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2564 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of August, 2009. ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in this revision which is not prejudicial to him. Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. 2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam in Crl.Appeal No.6 of 2008 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.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.70,000/- from him and for discharge of that liability issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 12.3.2005. Dishonour of that cheque for insufficiency of funds is proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and testified to his case. According to the petitioner, he borrowed only Rs.5,000/- from respondent No.1 and gave signed blank cheque which was misused. It is contended that due execution of the cheque is not proved. 3. It is admitted that petitioner had financial transaction with respondent No.1 and in connection with that, the cheque was given. Though when questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure petitioner contended that the amount borrowed from respondent No.1 was only Rs.5,000/- Crl.R.P.No.2564/2009 2 what was suggested to respondent No.1 is that he borrowed Rs.10,000/-. It is true that being an accused in a criminal case petitioner is entitled to take inconsistent pleas. But that is a matter to be considered by the courts while assessing the evidence of respondent No.1. Petitioner did not reply to the statutory notice served on him. There is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.1. I find no reason to differ from the finding of the courts below. 4. So far as sentence is concerned learned Additional Sessions Judge modified the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. While setting aside the direction for deposit of compensation learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced petitioner to pay fine of Rs.70,000/- with a default sentence of imprisonment for one month. It was directed that fine if realized will be given to respondent No.1 as compensation. Having regard to the nature of offence and the amount involved I find no reason to interfere with the sentence including payment of fine as modified by the appellate court at the instance of petitioner. 5. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted six months time to deposit fine . Counsel stated that on account of financial difficulties petitioner is not able to raise the amount immediately. Having regard to the circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined to grant time to the petitioner till 5.1.2010 to deposit the fine. Crl.R.P.No.2564/2009 3 Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 5.1.2010 to deposit the fine in the trial court. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 7.1.2010 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks