IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2011 / 26TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1596 of 2011(Y) ------------------------------- CRA.14/2010 of THE IV ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM ST.719/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOLENCHERRY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------- K.K.ARUNKUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, RESIDING AT KURINJIMOLATH HOUSE, BHAKTHANANTHAPURAM P.O., KURINJI, PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PINCODE - 682308. BY ADV. SRI.KURIAN JOSEPH (ARAKKUNNAM) SRI.NAVEEN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------ 1. T.V.GEORGE, S/O.VARGHESE, RESIDING AT THOTTUNGAL HOUSE, VADAYAMPADY P.O., PUTHENCRUZ, PINCODE - 682308, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682031. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C. NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.1596 OF 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2011 O R D E R Revision is by the accused convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for short, the 'N.I.Act', concurrently, by the two inferior courts. When the revision came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that he has no argument to address against the conviction, but, only a request for extension of time, two months period, to pay off the amount outstanding as due under the cheque and, thus, avoid the default term of imprisonment. Substantial portion of the cheque amount, which has been awarded as compensation, has already been paid, is the submission of the counsel. 2. Though notice has been ordered to the 1st respondent, it has been returned unserved. In the light of the submissions Crl.R.P.No.1596/2011 2 made by the counsel as above, I find no further notice need be sent to the 1st respondent/complainant. As against the conviction, as there is no challenge, no further dilation is called for. Similarly, the sentence, which is modified by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal, is limited to imprisonment for a day, till the rising of the court with direction to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- with default term of imprisonment for two months. Cheque involved in the case is seen dated 26.08.2005, and the dishonour of that instrument gave rise to the prosecution and, ultimately, the conviction of the revision petitioner/accused. 3. Having regard to the time lag that had occurred after the commencement of the prosecution over the dishonour of the cheque, admittedly, issued by the accused, I find no merit in the request made by his counsel for further extension of time to pay off the fine. 4. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolencherry on 20.09.2011 to serve out the substantive term of imprisonment for a day, till the rising of Crl.R.P.No.1596/2011 3 the court and to report payment of fine whatever be the amount outstanding if at all any payment had been made by deposit earlier. Till the date fixed as above, the learned Magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of the sentence against the petitioner. In default of his appearance and non- payment of the fine, the learned Magistrate shall execute the sentence taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. With the above directions, the revision is disposed of. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp Crl.R.P.No.1596/2011 4