IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2009 / 6TH BHADRA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2803 OF 2009() ------------------------------------------- CRA.470/2008 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), ALAPPUZHA CC.629/2006 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHERTHALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------------------- K.T.CHINDAMANI, W/O.M.D.PRAKASAN, AGED 39 YEARS, THONDUVELIL, MANNANCHERRY P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MANGALANANDAN SRI.PRATHEUSH.M.ANAND RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BIJU, S/O.PUSHKARAN, VAZHAKANDAMVELI, CHERTHALA SOUTH P.O. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S. HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2803 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th day of August, 2009 O R D E R -------------- In this revision petitioner is challenging concurrent finding entered by the courts below as to the due execution of a cheque for discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. Petitioner faced trial in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Cherthala in C.C. No.629 of 2006 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.18,000/ from him and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 30.9.2005. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as seen from Exts.P2 and P2(a). Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P3 to P5. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as P.W1 and stated about the transaction and execution of the cheque. Petitioner contended that she had no transaction with respondent No.1 and instead her husband and father in law of respondent No.1 had some transaction. Her husband handed over three signed blank cheques belonging to her to the father-in-law of respondent No.1 and one those cheques has been misused. Petitioner did not adduce evidence or bring out circumstances to prove or probabilise that contention. She did not reply to the statutory CRL. R.P. No.2803 of 2009 -: 2 :- notice served on her and she had no satisfactory explanation for not replying to the notice. There is no evidence to show that petitioner’s husband and father-in-law of respondent No.1 had transaction and at any rate the cheque in question was given to the father-in- law of respondent No.1. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.1. It is in the above circumstances that courts below found in favour of due execution of the cheque. On going through the judgments under challenge and hearing learned counsel I find no reason to interfere with the conviction of petitioner. 2. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Petitioner was directed to pay fine of Rs.19,500/- and in default of payment to undergo imprisonment for two months. Appellate court while confirming the sentence of fine and default sentence set aside the substantive sentence. It was further directed that fine if realised will be given to respondent No.1 as compensation. Having regard to the nature of offence and amount involved I do not find reason to interfere with the sentence of fine or the default sentence. 3. Learned counsel requested six months’ time to deposit fine. It is stated that petitioner is a poor lady and is unable to raise CRL. R.P. No.2803 of 2009 -: 3 :- the amount immediately. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined to grant time till 22.12.2009 to deposit fine in the trial court. Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 23.12.2009 to deposit fine in the trial court. In case of failure petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 23.12.2009 to receive the default sentence. Until 23.12.2009 execution of warrant if any against petitioner will remain in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv