IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 174 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRA.683/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKOE CC.438/2006 of J.F.C.M (MARAD CASES) KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONERAPPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------ GOKULAN.C., S/O.SAMIKKUTTY, AGED 41, CHERUKAD HOUSE, PERUNTHURUTI, ELATHUR.P.O. KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------- 1. M/S.SREE SINDHU KURIES INDIA PVT.LTD., CHOICE COMPLEX, RAMMOHAN ROAD, CALICUT, REP.BY T.K.RAJAN, S/O.KUNHIRARICHAN, AGE NOT KNOWN, NIRMALLUR.P.O., KOZHIKODE. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- Crl.R.P.No.174 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th 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 Negotiable Instruments Act. The cheque is for an amount of Rs.61,200/-. It bears the date 03/08/2004. The petitioner now faces a sentence of imprisonment till rising of court and there is a further direction to pay the actual cheque amount as compensation and in default to undergo S.I for a period of one month. 2. The signature in the cheque is admitted. Transaction between the parties is also admitted. Notice of demand though duly received and acknowledged did not evoke any response. The short contention raised in the course of trial was that the cheque was handed over as security and not for the discharge of any legally enforcible debt/liability. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to P5. The accused did not adduce any defence evidence. 3. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that the complainant has succeeded in establishing all the Crl.R.P.No.174/08 2 ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act. Accordingly they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments. 4. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned concurrent judgments. Called upon to explain the nature of the 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. He prays that leniency may be shown on the question of sentence. It is prayed that four months further time may be granted to the petitioner to pay the amount of compensation and avoid the default sentence. 5. I find absolutely no merit or grace in the said prayer. Leniency to the maximum possible extent has already been shown to the petitioner. The prayer for any long further time for payment of compensation and to avoid the default sentence is certainly not justified. However, I am satisfied that the petitioner can be given a short breathing time to raise and pay the amount and avoid the default sentence. 6. In the result this revision petition is dismissed but with the observation/direction that the petitioner shall have time Crl.R.P.No.174/08 3 till 29/02/2008 to make the payment. The impugned sentence shall not be executed till that date. The petitioner shall appear and his sureties shall produce him before the learned Magistrate on or before 01/03/2008 to serve the modified sentence hereby imposed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.R.P.No.174/08 4 R.BASANT, J Crl.R.P.No.174/08 5 Crl.M.A.Nos.21 & 65 of 2008 in Crl.R.P.No.765 of 2007 ORDER 17th DAY OF JANUARY 2008