IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 37 of 2008()
1. USHARATHNAM,MANAGER,VIDYAPOSHNI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SHEEJA JAYATHILAKAN,KAREEPADATH HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC
For Petitioner :SRI.U.O.JOSE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :08/01/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.Nos.37 & 38 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of January, 2008
O R D E R
These revision petitions are being taken up together for
disposal as identical contentions arise for consideration in these 2
cases.
2. The petitioner/accused had admittedly issued 2
cheques for Rs.1 lakh dated 30.12.01 and Rs.50,000/- dated
19.11.2001 to the common complainant. This payment was
allegedly made to enable the complainant to secure employment
in a school, of which the petitioner is the manager. Payment was
received, but employment was not provided. Demand was made
for return of the amount. Accordingly these 2 cheques were
issued. The cheques were dishonoured when they were
presented for encashment. Following the statutory time table,
separate complaints were made by the common complainant.
Separate trials were held. Various contentions were raised. It
was contended that the cheques were not issued for the due
discharge of any legally enforcible debt/liability. The amount was
paid by the complainant as donation and not as an amount which
is liable to be returned. It was further contended that the alleged
Crl.R.P.Nos.37 & 38 of 2008 2
payment to the manager of the school to secure employment
amounted to corruption and bribery and therefore the claim for
return is not legally enforcible.
3. 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.
4. The petitioner/accused claims to be aggrieved by the
impugned verdicts of guilty, convictions and sentences. 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 submits that the petitioner shall
be satisfied if the petitioner were granted 2 months’ time to make
the payment and avoid the default sentence. No other
contentions are raised on merits.
5. In the absence of any challenge raised against the
validity of the verdicts of guilty, conviction and sentences on
merits, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any
greater detail in this common order. Suffice it to say that I have
Crl.R.P.Nos.37 & 38 of 2008 3
gone through the impugned judgments. I am satisfied that the
verdicts of guilty, conviction and sentences are absolutely
justified.
6. Coming to the short and the simple prayer made for
further time to make the payment, I must say that I find no merit
whatsoever in that prayer. The cheques were issued in 2001.
The proceedings were initiated in 2002. Trial court pronounced
the judgment in 2005 (09.02.05) and the appellate court
pronounced the judgment on 07.09.07. The sentence imposed is
only imprisonment till rising of court. There is a further direction
to pay the actual amounts of the cheques only as compensation.
I do not, in these circumstances, find any merit in the prayer for
even one day’s further time to make the payment. The said last
prayer does not find favour with me, viewed from any angle.
7. These Revision Petitions are, in these circumstances,
dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-
Crl.R.P.Nos.37 & 38 of 2008 4