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. 2814 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.55/2009 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA CC.168/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------- SAJEEV V.V., S/O.VIJAYAN, KOORUVELIKKATHU HOUSE, POLLETHAI P.O., VALAVANADU, ALAPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA ,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. M.P.LALJI, S/O.RAGHAVAN, MANGADAKKADU, KALAVOOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2009 , THE COURT ON 28/08/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2814 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 28th day of August 2009 ORDER Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track No-1, Alappuzha in Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2009 confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to respondent No.2, petitioner borrowed Rs.45,000/- from him and for repayment of the same issued two cheques – dated 03-11-2007 for Rs.35,000/- and 21-09-2007 for Rs.10,000/-. Those cheques were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Respondent No.2 served statutory notice on petitioner intimating dishonour and demanding payment of the amount. But there was no response. Ext.P1 and P1(a) are the cheques in question. Its dishonour for insufficiency of funds is proved by Ext.P2series and P3 series. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 and P5. Respondent No.2 gave evidence as PW1. Petitioner examined himself as DW2. DW1 is his witness. Contention of petitioner is that he had given the cheques to one Unni. DW1 claimed that respondent No.2 is engaged in coir business and that in connection with the business he had with respondent No.2, he obtained two cheques from petitioner and gave the same to respondent No.2 while purchasing coir products worth Rs.45,000/-. Later DW1 repaid Rs.10,000/- to respondent No.2 Crl.R.P.No.2814 of 2009 2 and the balance payable to respondent No.2 is Rs.20000/-. Petitioner gave evidence as DW2. He stated that he obtained coir products on credit from DW1 and in discharge of that liability gave Exts.P1 and P1 (a) to DW1. Those two cheques are given by DW1 to respondent No.2. Courts below did not accept that case of petitioner. 2. It is not disputed that Ext.P1 and P1(a) are cheques drawn by the petitioner on the account maintained by him. There is also no dispute for the petitioner that the sum of Rs.45,000/- was due to respondent No.2 and it was in connection with that the cheques were given. According to the petitioner, his transaction was with DW1 and, DW1 would say that in connection with the business he had with respondent No.2 he handed over the cheques. Even as per the version of petitioner the cheques are given to respondent No.2 for the discharge of liability to the tune of Rs.45,000/-. Petitioner did not reply to the statutory notice served on him. Court below found that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 and also found in favour of due execution of the cheque. I do not find reason to differ on going through the judgments under challenge and hearing learned counsel. 3. Appellate court has modified the sentence on petitioner as fine of Rs.45,000/- and default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. It is directed that the fine if realised, shall be given to respondent No.2 as compensation. Having regard to the nature of Crl.R.P.No.2814 of 2009 3 offence and the amount involved there is no reason to interfere with the sentence as modified by the appellate court or the default sentence imposed, at the instance of petitioner. Learned counsel has requested that petitioner may be granted six months' time to deposit the fine. It is stated that on account of financial difficulties petitioner is unable to raise the entire amount immediately. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the difficulties of petitioner stated by learned counsel I am inclined to grant time till 21-12-2009 to deposit fine in the trial court. Resultantly this revision petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 21-12-2009 to deposit fine in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court. In case of failure, petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 23-12-2009 to receive the default sentence. Execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance till 23-12-2009. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/