IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2541 OF 2009() ----------------------------------------------- CRA.684/2007 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM ST.202/2007 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II (MOBILE), KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S) - APPELLANT - ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------- SALU N.R., NEENDAKARA HOUSE, EARA POST, KURICHY, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S) - RESPONDENT - STATE & COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. GLADSON JACOB, KARICHIRA VADAKKEL, MUTTAMBALAM POST, KOTTAYAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S. HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2541 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th day of August, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with in view of the order I propose to pass which is not prejudicial to him. Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.1. 2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Session Judge, Kottayam in Crl. Appeal No.684 of 2007 confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). According to respondent No.2, petitioner borrowed Rs.50,000/- from him and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque. Dishonour of that cheque for insufficiency of funds is proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Service of notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Respondent No.2 gave evidence as P.W.1 in support of his case. Petitioner contended and stated as D.W.1 that he borrowed Rs.20,000/- from respondent No.2 in June, 2005 and Rs.35,000/-, later. At that time a signed blank cheque was obtained. He discharged the said liabilities. There was no transaction between him and respondent No.2 thereafter. Singed blank cheque obtained by the respondent No.2 has been misused. His evidence did not find favour with the CRL. R.P. No.2541 of 2009 -: 2 :- courts below. Finding regarding execution of cheque is under challenge in this revision. 3. It is true that petitioner gave evidence as D.W1 and stated to his case. But there is no evidence to show that there was any such transaction as claimed by him or that he repaid any amount to respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has produced Ext.P1, cheque admittedly signed by petitioner and drawn on his account. That cheque created liability on petitioner. I stated that there is no evidence to show that petitioner discharged the liability as claimed by him. Petitioner has also not replied to the statutory notice served on him. In the above circumstances courts below found in favour of due execution of the cheque. I find no reason to interfere with that finding. 4. In modification of the sentence awarded and direction for payment of compensation by learned magistrate, appellate court sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month. Appellate court also directed that the fine if realised will be paid to respondent No.2 as compensation. Considering the nature of offence there is no reason to interfere with CRL. R.P. No.2541 of 2009 -: 3 :- the sentence as modified by the appellate court at the instane of petitioner. 5. Learned counsel requested six months' time to deposit the fine. He explained the difficulties being experienced by petitioner in raising the amount. Considering the difficulties expressed by learned counsel I am inclined to grant time to the petitioner till 5.1.2010 to deposit the fine. Resultantly this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 5.1.2010 to deposit the fine in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 7.1.2010 to receive he sentence. Until then execution of warrant against petitioner will stand in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv