IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2011 / 26TH ASWINA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2421 of 2011() ------------------------------------ CRA.888/2009 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-IV, TRIVANDRUM ST.2353/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------- T.DAMODARAN, S/O.THIRUPATHY NAIDU, TEXTILE DEALER, TC.38/224/2 CHENTHITTA STREET, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. UNION BANK OF INDIA, KARAMANA BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, CHOCKALINGAM, UNION BANK OF INDIA, KARAMANA BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RAJESH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.2421 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of October 2011 ORDER The revision is by the accused who has been convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, NI Act), concurrently by the two courts below. Sentence imposed against the accused, as modified by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal, is imprisonment till rising of the court and payment of fine of `.1,60,000/- with default term of simple imprisonment for a period of one month more. 2. Notice in the revision was ordered to the second respondent/complainant, but, after service, he has elected to remain absent. 3. When the revision came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused submitted that he has no arguments on merits to assail the conviction and sentence, but, only a request to be made for grant of three months time for payment of the fine and, thus, avoid the default term of imprisonment. Cheque involved in the case, which on dishonour gave rise to the prosecution and ultimately the conviction of the accused, is dated 13-06-2007, and the amount covered by that instrument is `.1,56,290/-. Considering the time lag after commencement of the prosecution, prima facie, there is Crl.R.P No.2421 OF 2011 - 2 - no merit in the request made for further extension of time to pay the fine imposed. However, taking into consideration the submissions made by the counsel for the revision petitioner/accused justifying the request made for to seek some more time to make payment, I find, a short period as indicated hereunder can be granted for payment. 4. Affirming the conviction and sentence the revision petitioner/accused is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 05-01-2012 to serve out the imprisonment till the rising of the court, and to report payment of the fine. The Magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of sentence till the date fixed as above for his appearance, to enable him to pay the fine within such period. In default of his appearance and nonpayment of fine within the date fixed as above, the learned Magistrate shall execute the sentence taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. Revision disposed of. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge