IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2011 / 4TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1776 of 2011() ------------------------------------------- CRA.NO. 140/2010 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT(ADHOC)III, PATHANAMTHITTA ST.1304/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SINDHU.S., GAYATHRY BHAVAN, P/P9/305, KUNNUPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. C.SUSHEELA, GAYATHRY BHAVAN, P/P9/305, KUNNUPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MULAMOOTTIL FINANCE CORPORATION IS REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER V.K.ABRAHAM, MANAGER, MULAMOOTTIL FINANCE CORPORATION, KOZHENCHERRY. 689 654. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.1776 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of July 2011 ORDER The revision is by the accused convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, NI 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 on merits, but, only a request for extension of time to pay the fine awarded and, thus, avoid the default term of imprisonment. 2. Going through the judgments rendered by the courts below, it is seen, the cheque involved, the dishonour of which had given raise to the prosecution and ultimately the conviction of the accused, was dated 17-05-2007. Conviction of the accused is also founded on unimpeachable legal evidence tendered in the case. Plea for extension of time for a period of three months is canvassed by the counsel stating that the accused is facing financial difficulties. That cannot be given unmerited consideration where it is seen that the prosecution over the dishonoured cheque had continued for the last four years. However, taking note of the submissions made by the counsel, the Magistrate concerned is directed to keep in abeyance Crl.R.P No.1776/2011 - 2 - the execution of sentence for a period of six weeks from today. Petitioners are directed to appear before the Magistrate on 20-09-2011 to serve out the substantive term of imprisonment for one day, till the rising of the court, and also to report the payment of fine awarded. In default of his appearance, and nonpayment of the fine, the Magistrate concerned shall take appropriate steps to execute the sentence in accordance with law. Revision is disposed of. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge