IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2011 / 4TH BHADRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 563 of 2006() ---------------------------- CRA.224/2005 of VI ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.909/2000 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM ................... REVISION PETITIONER / APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SATHEESAN, AGED 49 YEARS, PERUMPILLIYIL HOUSE, THIRUVANIYOOR P.O., PUTHENCRUZ. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS / COMLPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HGIH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. EVER BRIGHT INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, VISHNU PRASAD. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.HARISHARMA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.563 OF 2006 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August 2011 ORDER 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 inferior courts. 2. When the revision came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused fairly submitted that the defence canvassed to resist the prosecution, after meticulous consideration, had been found unacceptable by the learned Sessions Judge, though it has not been specifically appreciated by the learned Magistrate, with reference to the materials placed in the case. Knowing fully well the narrow limits within which the exercise of revisional jurisdiction can be proceeded with in examining the merit of an order passed by an inferior court, the counsel submitted that the correctness of the finding of guilty concurrently entered by the two courts, may not survive for further scrutiny. It is submitted that out of the amount fixed, payable as fine, a sum of Rs.6,000/- has already been paid even at the trial stage. To pay the balance amount, the counsel seeks for reasonable time. 3. Going through the judgments rendered by the learned Crl.R.P No.563 OF 2006 - 2 - Magistrate and also the learned Sessions Judge, I find that the conviction imposed against the accused is founded on unimpeachable legal evidence. So far as the sentence imposed also, fine alone is provided as punishment with direction to pay something more than the cheque amount to be paid as compensation with default term of simple imprisonment for two months. Sentence is also found to be just and reasonable. Prosecution, on dishonour of the cheque was commenced way back in 2000 and when that be the case, there is no merit in the request made for further time for payment of the amount covered by the fine. 4. Affirming the conviction and sentence, the learned Magistrate is directed to defer the execution of the sentence for a period of one month from today. In default of payment of fine within such period by the petitioner/accused, the learned Magistrate shall execute the sentence taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. Whatever amount paid towards the fine shall be given credit to. Revision is dismissed with the afore directions. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge