IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 2420 of 2006()
1. THANKAMMA SUKUMARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.R. MANOJ KUMAR, KARUKACHERIL HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.N.N.ELAYATH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :14/07/2006
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P.No. 2420 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 14th day of July, 2006
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.
2. The cheque is for an amount of Rs.25,000/- It is dated
9.5.2003. Signature in the cheque is admitted. Handing over of the
cheque is not disputed. The notice of demand, though duly received
and acknowledged, did not evoke any response. The complainant
examined himself as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to P6. The
petitioner examined herself as DW1. In the course of the trial the
accused took up a contention that the cheque was issued not for the
discharge of any legally enforcible debt/liability, but only as a
security when chitty amounts due to her were released by the
complainant. Ext.P1 cheque was issued only as an acknowledgment
for the amount received by her in the chitty transaction.
Crl.R.P.No. 2420 of 2006 2
3. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that all
ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act
have been established. Accordingly they proceeded to pass the
impugned concurrent judgments.
4. 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
guilty and conviction on merits. Having gone through the impugned
concurrent judgments, I am satisfied that the verdict of guilty and
conviction are absolutely justified and unexceptionable. 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 counsel prays that leniency may be shown. It is prayed that
the petitioner may be granted some further time to make the payment of
compensation as directed by the court below. I am not satisfied that any
further leniency needs or deserves to be shown. However it can be
directed that the petitioner shall appear before the trial court on 1.9.2006
to serve the impugned sentence. Till then the sentence shall not be
Crl.R.P.No. 2420 of 2006 3
executed. If the petitioner does not so appear, the learned Magistrate shall
thereafter take necessary steps to execute the impugned sentence.
7. This revision petition is hence dismissed with the above
observations/directions.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm