IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2072 of 2011() --------------------------------------------- CRA.NO.386/2010 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT(ADHOC-III), N.PARAVUR CC.NO.8/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ALUVA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/ APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------- VIJAYAGOPAL, AGED 47 YEARS S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, SARASWATHY NILAYAM (KOOTHANALIL), HOUSE NO.13/74, DESOM ,ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.JAISON JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. B.RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.P.KARUNAKARAN, MADATHIL HOUSE NO.IV/567, NEAR MAHAVISHNU TEMPLE, DESOM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MOHAMED HASHIM SRI.V.M.SAJAN R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA.R THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.2072 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of November 2011 ORDER The revision is by the accused convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, the Act), concurrently by the two inferior courts. Sentence imposed against the accused, as modified by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal, is imprisonment for one year with direction to pay compensation of `.1,00,000/- with default term of simple imprisonment for three months. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has preferred this revision. 2. Notice given, the 1st respondent/ complainant has entered appearance. 3. When the revision was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has no arguments on merits to assail the conviction, but, only against the sentence imposing a substantive term of imprisonment for one year to seek reduction of such punishment and also a request for grant of some more time to pay the compensation fixed. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant, opposing the request for grant of time, pointed out that the cheque involved in the case is of Crl. R.P No.2072 OF 2011 2 the year 2004. However, it is submitted that this court may fix reasonable time for payment as it deems fit and proper. 4. Going through the judgments rendered by the magistrate and also the learned sessions Judge, I find that no special circumstance has been made out in the case to justify the punishment of imprisonment for a period of one year against the accused, for the offence under Section 138 of the Act with which he was found guilty and convicted. Sentence imposed can be reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court retaining the compensation fixed with the default term of imprisonment. So far as the request made for extension of time, prima facie there is no merit. However, taking into account the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find, a short period as indicated hereunder, can be provided for payment of the compensation. 5. Affirming the conviction, sentence imposed against the accused is reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court retaining the compensation amount fixed with the default term of imprisonment. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 02-01-2012 to serve out the imprisonment till the rising of the court, and to report payment of the compensation. The magistrate Crl. R.P No.2072 OF 2011 3 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 compensation within such period. In default of his appearance and nonpayment of the compensation, the 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