IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2011 / 1ST ASWINA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2283 of 2011() ------------------------------------------- CRA.747/2010 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM ST.1413/2006 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): /APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUMITHRAN, S/O.BHASKARAN, K.P.181, BEENA BHAVAN, CHANNANKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. N.DEVARAJAN, HIRANS COTTAGE, CHITTATTUMUKKU, MENAMKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK, PIN - 695 588. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682 031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl. R.P No.2283 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September 2011 ORDER Revision is by the accused convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, NI Act), concurrently, by the two inferior courts. Sentence imposed against the accused, as modified by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal, is imprisonment for a day, till the rising of the court and also payment of fine of `.1,00,000/-, the cheque amount, with default term of simple imprisonment for two months. 2. 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 some more reasonable time to make payment and, thus, avoid the default term of imprisonment. Cheque involved in the case, the dishonour of which had given raise to the prosecution and ultimately led to the conviction of the accused, is dated 29-03-2006 and the sum covered thereunder is `.1,00,000/-. When that be so, prima facie, there is no merit in the request made for further extension of time to pay the fine. However, taking into consideration the circumstances presented by the learned counsel for the accused to persuade for grant of some more time to the accused Crl. R.P No.2283/2011 - 2 - to effect payment of fine, I find, time as provided hereunder can be granted. 3. Affirming the conviction and also sentence, the revision petitioner/accused is directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 12-12-2011 to serve out the substantive term of imprisonment for a day, till the rising of the court, and to report payment of the fine. The learned Magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of the sentence till the date fixed as above for his appearance. In default of his appearance and nonpayment of the fine, the learned Magistrate shall execute the sentence taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. Revision is disposed of. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge