IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2011 / 24TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1641 of 2011() ------------------------------------------- CRA.NO. 340/2010 of III ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.NO. 264/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOTTARAKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------------- S.VINOD, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.SATHYAN, VINEESH BHAVAN, KAKKAKOTTOOR, EZHUKONE, KOTTARAKARA. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. N.BABU, S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, AZHAKATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, KAKKAKOTTOOR MURI, KOTTARAKARA.PIN-690 021 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.1641 OF 2011 -------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July 2011 ORDER Accused in C.C No.264/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Kottarakara is the revision petitioner. He was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, NI Act). Finding him guilty of the offence, the learned Magistrate sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs.85,000/- with direction that if such sum is realised, it shall be released to the complainant, the 2nd respondent. Appeal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction was turned down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam. Confirming the conviction, the learned Sessions Judge modified and reduced the sentence to simple imprisonment for one day till the rising of the court, retaining the fine as fixed by the learned Magistrate, but, with default term of imprisonment for two months. As against the conviction concurrently entered by the two inferior courts, and sentence as modified, the accused has preferred this revision. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, fairly conceding that challenges against the conviction based on the finding of fact concurrently made by the two inferior courts in the Crl.R.P No.1641/2011 - 2 - proved facts would not survive for consideration, pleaded for extension of time to pay the fine amount fixed and thus avoid the default term of imprisonment. Counsel requested for two months time to pay the fine. Perusing the judgments rendered by the two courts below, I find, the conviction imposed against the accused is fully supported by legal evidence. Sentence imposed is also just and reasonable. Considering the request made by the counsel for extension of time, with reference to the date of dishonour of the cheque, I find, extension of time by six weeks can be granted to enable the accused to pay the fine and thus avoid the default term. The learned Magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of sentence for a period of six weeks from today. Irrespective of the extension of time granted as aforesaid, the revision petitioner/accused shall appear before the learned Magistrate on 29-08-2011 to serve out the simple imprisonment for a day, till the rising of the court, and also to report the payment of the fine. In default of his appearance and nonpayment of the compensation, the learned Magistrate shall take appropriate steps to execute the sentence. Revision is disposed as above. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge