IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P. JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1777 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.605/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM ST.317/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:- ----------------------------------------------------- P.S.SHERIF, PPALLAMPARAMBIL, NADAYIKAL.P.O., ERATTUPETTA. BY ADV. MR. V.K.MOHAMMED YOUSUF RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:- --------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. M.I.SHAJI, MADUKOLLIPARAMBIL, ANAKKALLE.P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY. ADV. MR. JAYAKRISHNAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P.NO. 1777 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2009 ORDER Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to make and which is not to the prejudice of respondent No.2. 2. This revision arises from the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Kottayam in Crl.A.No.605/07 which arose from judgment of learned judicial first class magistrate, Kanjirapally in S.T.No.317/06. The case arose on a private complaint preferred by respondent No.2. According to him, petitioner owed Rs.25,000/- to him and for the discharge of that liability issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 9.7.2005. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Issue and service of statutory notice on the petitioner intimating dishonour and demanding payment of the amount are not disputed before me and proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Respondent No.2 gave evidence as PW1 and testified to his case. According to the petitioner, he had no transaction with respondent No.2 and had Crl.R.P.No.1777/09 2 not given any cheque to respondent No.2. Courts below found that petitioner issued the cheque in favour of respondent No.2 as pleaded by the latter. That finding is under challenge in this revision. 2. Petitioner did not explain how else the cheque signed by him and drawn on the account maintained by him reached respondent No.2. He did not also reply to the notice served on him. As to the transaction and the execution of cheque, respondent No.2 has given evidence. Nothing is brought out to disbelieve him. The negotiable instrument creating liability on the petitioner is produced by respondent No.2 from his possession. Courts below accepted the evidence of respondent No.2, took note of the failure of petitioner to reply to the notice and found him guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). On going through the judgments and hearing the learned counsel for petitioner, I do not find any merit in the contention advanced by the petitioner. I do not find any illegality, irregularity and impropriety in the judgment under challenge or Crl.R.P.No.1777/09 3 the proceedings of the court below requiring interference in revision. 3. Learned magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months. He was directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for 45 days. Learned Sessions Judge modified the substantive sentence as Simple Imprisonment till rising of the court and converted compensation into fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for one month. I do not find reason to interfere with the sentence as modified by the appellate court. 4. Counsel for petitioner requested three months’ time to deposit the fine in the trial Court. Having regard to the amount involved and the fact cheque was issued on 9.7.2005 and also taking into account circumstances stated by the learned counsel, I am inclined to grant two months’ time from today to deposit fine in the trial court. Resultantly, this revision fails and it is accordingly Crl.R.P.No.1777/09 4 dismissed. Petitioner is granted two months’ time from today to deposit fine in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 12.8.2009 to receive the sentence. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE Acd Crl.R.P.No.1777/09 5