IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2381 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.238/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM ST.328/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, CHENGANACHERRY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- P.S.GANESH, M/S. ALANKAR JEWELLERS, SCS JUNCTION, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUNNY CHERIAN, KOLLAMPARAMBIL, PERUMPANACHI, CHANGANASSERY. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S.HRITHWIK FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2381 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of July, 2009. ORDER Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.1. Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in this revision which is not prejudicial to him. 2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam in Crl.Appeal No.238 of 2008 confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). Case is that petitioner borrowed Rs.50,000/- from respondent No.2 and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 6.11.2004. Dishonour of that cheque as account was closed is proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 to P6. It is contended that due execution of the cheque is not proved. 3. Respondent No.2 gave evidence as PW1 regarding the transaction and execution of cheque. Petitioner raised a plea of discharge. There is no serious dispute regarding transaction or execution of cheque. Plea of discharge is not established. Courts below have accepted evidence of respondent No.2 and found petitioner guilty. I do not find reason to interfere with that finding Crl.R.P.No.2381/2009 2 4. Learned Additional Sessions Judge modified substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court while confirming sentence of fine and default sentence. I do not find reason to interfere with the sentence as modified and confirmed by the appellate court. 5. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted six months’ time to deposit fine in the trial court as he is in financially difficult situation. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined grant time till 30.12.2009 to the petitioner to deposit fine. Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 30.12.2009 to deposit fine in the trial court. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31.12.2009 to receive the sentence. Execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance till 31.12.2009. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks