IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2011 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2954 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.86/2010 of Vth ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.1463/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOCHI .................................... REVISION PETITIONERS/ APPELLANTS/ ACCUSED : ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. M/S.SURABHI PUBLICATIONS, MUNICIPAL SHOPPING ARCADE, NEAR PRIVATE BUS STAND, CHANGANASSERY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR.JOSE MATHEW 2. JOSE MATHEW, MANAGING PARTNER, SURABHI PUBLICATION, MUNICIPAL BUILDING, NEAR PRIVATE BUS STAND, CHANGANASSERY 3. BABU GEORGE, MANAGING PARTNER, SURABHI PUBLICATION, MUNICIPAL BUILDING, NEAR PRIVATE BUS STAND, CHANGANASSERY BY ADV. SRI.N.P.SETHU RESPONDENTS : ------------------------ 1. SRI.AYYAPPA PAPER COMPANY (P) LTD., A PRIVATE LTD. COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.2 (OLD NO.17), LATE C.VENKATA VIJAYAM, 1ST FLOOR, TILAK STREET, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600017 AND PLACE OF BUSINESS AT XL/2269, ERNAKULAM MERCHANTS ROAD, COCHIN - 682031, REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE A.R.K.N. PERIYAKARUPPAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.KANNAPPAN, KUTTAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANDIRAM ROAD, AYYAPPANKAVU, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM R2 BY SMT.SEENA.R., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RKM S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------ Crl. R.P No.2954 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of December, 2011. O R D E R Revision is filed by the accused in a cheque case. The 1st accused is a firm and the 2nd and 3rd accused are its partners. Complaint arose over a cheque issued by the firm to the complainant, company. Trial magistrate negatived the plea of not guilty canvassed by the accused convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act, sentencing the 1st accused, firm to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and the 2nd and 3rd accused, partners of the firm, to undergo simple imprisonment of one month each and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each. In the appeal preferred by the accused, all of them together, the learned Sessions Judge confirming conviction modified the sentence against the 2nd and 3rd accused by vacating the substantive term of imprisonment passed against them. The rest of the sentence directing payment of the fine by the 1st accused and also 2nd and 3rd accused as ordered by the magistrate was retained. Challenge in the revision is against the conviction rendered concurrently, with the sentence as indicated above. Crl. R.P No.2954/2011 -2- 2. The revision coming up for consideration, learned counsel for the accused submitted that he has no argument on merits to assail the conviction and sentence but, only request for grant of some more time to pay the fine and, thus, to avoid default term of imprisonment imposed against 2nd and 3rd accused, the partners of the first accused firm. Going through the judgment rendered by the magistrate and also the Sessions Judge, prima facie I find no merit in the request made for extension of time. Cheque involved in the case which gave rise to the conviction of the petitioners/accused, it is seen, was drawn and issued way back in 2003. When that be so further extension of time that too in relation to a cheque issued nearly a decade ago, for sum of Rs.20,000/-, cannot at all be entertained. However, considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner I find a short time as indicated hereunder can be provided to enable the 2nd and 3rd accused to avoid their incarceration paying the fine within such time. 3. Affirming the conviction and sentence one month time from today is granted for payment of fine. Magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of sentence for a period of one month to enable 2nd and 3rd accused to pay off the fine within Crl. R.P No.2954/2011 -3- such period. In default of payment within the period fixed as above the magistrate shall execute the sentence in accordance with law. Revision petition is disposed of. Sd/- S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE AMG True copy P.A to Judge