IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2011 / 29TH ASWINA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2532 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.169/2009 of ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS (ADHOC), FAST TRACK COURT I, PATHANAMTHITTA ST.1386/2007 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ANEESH CHANDRAN, THAZHATHETHIL HOUSE, EDASERIMAA, ARANMULA. BY ADVS. SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB, SRI.EBY AUGUSTINE. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JOJI J.VARUGHESE, THUNDIYATHU HOUSE, EDASSERIMALA, ARANMULA-689 533. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEENA.R. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.2532 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of October 2011 ORDER The revision is by the accused who has been convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, NI Act), concurrently by the two courts below. Sentence imposed against the accused, as affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal, is imprisonment till the rising of the court with direction to pay compensation of `.1,50,000/-, the cheque amount, with default term of simple imprisonment for three months. 2. When the revision came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no arguments on merits to assail the conviction and sentence, but, only a request to be made for grant of some more time for payment of the compensation awarded and, thus, avoid the default term of imprisonment. Cheque involved in the case, the dishonour of which gave rise to the prosecution and ultimately the conviction of the accused is dated 10-01-2005 and the sum covered by that instrument is `.1,50,000/-. No part of the amount covered by the cheque has been paid to the complainant so far. When that be so, prima facie, there is no merit in the request made for further extension of time to pay the compensation. However, taking into account the submissions made by the counsel pointing out the Crl.R.P No.2532 OF 2011 - 2 - extenuating circumstances available to the accused, to seek for further time for payment who is stated to be facing severe financial difficulties, I find, a short period, as indicated hereunder, can be granted for payment. 3. Affirming the conviction and sentence the revision petitioner/accused is directed to appear before the Magistate on 09-01-2012 to serve out the imprisonment till the rising of the court , and to report payment of the compensation. The learned Magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of sentence against the accused till the date fixed as above for his appearance, to enable him to pay the amount within such period. In default of his appearance and nonpayment of the compensation, the learned Magistrate shall execute the sentence taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. Revision disposed of. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copyy// P.A to Judge