IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 3542 of 2007()
1. KAMALA MAHADEVAN, W/O MAHADEVAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M/S SREE GOKULAM CHIT AND FINANCE CO.(P)
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :25/01/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.3542 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of January, 2008
O R D E R
This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict
of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section
138 of the N.I Act. The cheque is for an amount of Rs.98,432/-. It
bears the date 07.09.2001. The petitioner now faces a sentence
of imprisonment till rising of court. There is a further direction to
pay the actual cheque amount of Rs.98,432/- as compensation
under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C and in default to undergo s.i for a
further period of 15 days.
2. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion
that the complainant has succeeded in establishing all ingredients
of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.
Accordingly they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent
judgments.
3. The petitioner has come up in revision. Called upon to
explain the nature of challenge which the petitioner wants to
mount against the impugned concurrent judgments, the learned
counsel for the petitioner does not strain to assail the verdict of
Crl.R.P.No.3542 of 2007 2
guilty and conviction on merits. The counsel only prays that some
further time may be granted for making the payment of the
compensation amount and thus avoid the default sentence.
4. In the absence of challenge on any specific grounds, it
is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail. I
do take note of the fact that the complainant had examined PW1
and proved Exts.P1 to P7. Ext.P6 reply notice was issued by the
accused to the complainant on receipt of the notice of demand.
Exts.D1 to D7 were marked by the accused, but no other defence
evidence whatsoever has been adduced. Both courts have not
considered Exts.D1 to D7 in detail. But the trial court has
observed in para.7 of its judgment that Exts.D1 to D7 do not help
the petitioner to prove his case. Even in spite of a pointed query
by this Court, no attempt whatsoever was made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner to advance any arguments on the basis
of Ext.P6, Exts.D1 to D7 or cross examination of PW1 to build up
any contention against the verdict of guilty and conviction.
Though Exts.D1 to D7 have not been considered in detail by the
courts below, I am satisfied that the impugned verdict of guilty
and conviction are justified and do not warrant interference.
Crl.R.P.No.3542 of 2007 3
5. Coming to the question of sentence, I note that the
maximum possible leniency has already been shown to the
petitioner. I do not, in these circumstances, find any merit or
grace in the prayer for any long further period of time to pay the
amount and avoid the default sentence. However, I am satisfied
that a breathing time can be granted to the petitioner to raise and
pay the amount and avoid the default sentence.
6. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed, but
with the direction/observation that the impugned sentence shall
not be executed till 29.02.08. The petitioner shall have time till
29.02.08 to raise and pay the amount and avoid the default
sentence. On or before 01.03.08 the petitioner shall appear and
the sureties shall produce him before the learned Magistrate for
execution of the sentence imposed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-
Crl.R.P.No.3542 of 2007 4