IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 47 of 2008()
1. K.S.ANIL KUMAR, AGED 40,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PIOUS JOHN, AGED 50, ANCHUTHARA,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.V.C.JAMES
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :09/01/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P.No. 47 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 9th 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.60,000/- It bears the
date 28.7.2004. The petitioner faces the sentence of imprisonment till
rising of Court. There is a further direction to pay an amount of Rs.
60,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default
to undergo S.I. for a period of three months.
2. The complainant examined himself as PW1. Exts.P1 to P6
were marked. The accused did not adduce any defence evidence. The
contention that was raised before the court below is that the cheque
was handed over as security and the entire liability has been
discharged. No evidence whatsoever was adduced in support of that
theory. Notice of demand was returned unclaimed.
-2-
3. The courts below, in these circumstances, 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. 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 only prays that some further
time may be granted to the petitioner so that the petitioner can raise the
amount, pay the same and avoid the default sentence.
4. I have perused the impugned judgments. I am satisfied that
the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence is absolutely justified and
does not warrant any interference on merits. In the absence of
challenge on any specific ground, it is not necessary for me to advert to
facts in any greater detail.
5. The cheque was issued in the year 2004. The prosecution was
initiated in 2004. Judgment by the trial court was pronounced on
28.3.2007. Appellate judgment was rendered on 29.9.2007. Maximum
-3-
leniency has already been shown by the learned appellate Judge. I find
absolutely no merit in the prayer made for any long further time for
making the payment. However, I am satisfied that the petitioner can
be granted time till 29.2.2008 to make the payment and avoid default
sentence.
5. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed, but with the
directions/observation that the impugned sentence against the
petitioner shall not be executed till 29.2.2008. On or before 1.3.2008
the petitioner shall appear, and his sureties shall produce him, before
the learned Magistrate for execution of the impugned sentence.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm