IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1471 of 2010()
1. P.BHAGAVATHY,W/O.KRISHNAN(LATE),12/1039
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JACOB,S/O. DEVASSI,CHEMMANNUR VEEDU,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.BALAGOPAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :30/04/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.
----------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.1471 of 2010
---------------------------------------
Dated this 30th day of April, 2010
ORDER
This revision petition is in challenge of judgment of learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Palakkad in Crl.Appeal.No.518 of 2008
confirming conviction of appellant for offence punishable under
section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”)
but modifying the sentence. The case arose on a complaint
preferred by respondent No.1. He alleged that petitioner owed
Rs.60,000/- to him and to discharge that liability issued Ext.P1,
cheque dated 27-12-2004. Dishonour of that cheque for
insufficiency of funds and issue and service of statutory notice on
petitioner are proved by Exts.P2 to P4 series. Respondent No.1
gave evidence as PW1 and testified to his case. Petitioner denied
that she had any transaction with respondent No.1 and claimed tht
the cheque involved was received by respondent No.1 through one
Suresh. Appellant examined the manager of the drawee bank as
DW1 and proved Ext.D1, her specimen signature card presumably
to show that Ext.P1 was not signed by her. Courts below were not
impressed by the contentions raised by the appellant and held her
guilty under section 138 of the Act. That is under challenge in this
Crl.R.P.No.1471 of 2010
: 2 :
revision petition. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the
courts below have not referred to the evidence of DW1 and Ext.D1.
It is also submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that evidence
of PW1 regarding the transaction is not believable.
2. It is not disputed that Ext.P1 was drawn on the account
maintained by petitioner. Hence there is reason to think that the
cheque was drawn by the petitioner on the account maintained by
her. In case she alleged forgery of the cheque that was something
which she had to prove as this court held in Ajithkumar Vs.
Rejinkumar & Another (2009 (3) KHC 221) Evidence adduced
by the petitioner to prove the alleged forgery is that of DW1 and
Ext.D1. It is true that there is no specific reference to Ext.D1 by
the courts below but with Ext.D1 on record the courts below found
that Ext.P1 was issued by the petitioner. That finding is made on
the facts and a proper appreciation of the evidence on record. I do
not find reason to interfere with the finding of fact entered by the
courts below. As I stated dishonour of the cheque for
insufficiency of funds, service of statutory notice and failure of
petitioner to pay the amount in spite of such notice are proved. In
the circumstance conviction of petitioner requires no interference.
3. Learned Magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo
simple imprisonment for one month and directed her to pay
Crl.R.P.No.1471 of 2010
: 3 :
compensation of Rs.60,000/-. There was also a default sentence of
simple imprisonment for one month. Appellate court modified the
sentence as fine of Rs.61,000/- and in default of payment to
undergo simple imprisonment for one month. It was directed that
out of the fine amount if realised, Rs.60,000/- will be paid to
respondent No.1 as compensation. Learned counsel request that
petitioner may be granted six months’ time to deposit the fine in
the trial court. He states that petitioner is unable to raise the
amount immediately. Having regard to the circumstances stated
by learned counsel I am inclined to grant four (4) months’ time
from this day to deposit the fine in the trial court as ordered by the
appellate court.
Resultantly this revision petition fails and it is accordingly
dismissed. Petitioner is granted four months’ time from this day to
deposit the fine awarded by the appellate court in the trial court.
Until then, execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will
remain in abeyance.
(THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)
Sbna/-