IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 8TH ASWINA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2345 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.162/2009 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (AD HOC), PATHANAMTHITTA ST.1435/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------------------------- V.V.REGHUNATHAN, SYNDICATE BANK LTD., THIRUVALLA BRANCH, PLAMTHOTTATHIL BUILDINGS, THIRUVALLA.P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. T.K.ANTONY, THAKADIYIL HOUSE, PALLICKACHIRA KAVALA.P.O., CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.686 537. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. NO. 2345 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2011. O R D E R Revision is by the accused who has been convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the NI Act') concurrently by the two courts below. Sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge modifying the punishment awarded by the learned Magistrate, is one of imprisonment for a day, till rising of the court, with direction to pay Rs.75,000/- as fine with default term of simple imprisonment for three months. 2. When the revision came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that he has no arguments against the conviction and also sentence, but only request to be made to grant him six months time to pay the fine and, thus, avoid the default term of imprisonment. Cheque involved in the case is dated 10.1.07 and the amount covered by that instrument is Rs.70,000/-. The dishonour of that instrument has given rise to the prosecution, and, ultimately the conviction of the accused. Having regard to the time lag after the dishonour of the cheque, I find the request for the period of time canvassed by the counsel Crl.R.P. NO. 2345 OF 2011 2 for payment of fine cannot be allowed. However taking into account the submissions made by the counsel reasonable time for payment as indicated hereunder can be granted. 3. Affirming the conviction and also the sentence the accused is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 20.12.2011 to serve out the imprisonment for a day and to report the payment of fine. The Magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of the sentence fixed as above to enable the accused to pay the fine amount awarded within such period. In default of his appearance and non payment of the fine, the Magistrate shall execute the sentence taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. Revision is disposed of. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE mns