IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2011 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2990 of 2011() ------------------------------ {CRA.696/2008 OF I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.1381/2007 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, PALAKKAD} .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------------- K.R.CHANDRAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. LATE RAMAN, KANDANKULANGARA VEEDU, AYILOOR P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.V.SUDHAKARAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, POOLAKKALPARAMBIL HOUSE, AYILOOR, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD 678 101. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA.R. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2990 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2011 O R D E R Challenge in the revision is against the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the Act”), concurrently rendered by the two courts below. Sentence imposed against the accused is one of fine, directing him to pay the sum covered by the cheque, with default term of simple imprisonment for one month. Fine, if realised, was directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant. 2. The revision was filed with a petition to condone the delay of 640 days and on the representation made by the counsel that no challenge against the conviction and sentence on merits is proposed to be canvassed for, but only a Crl.R.P.No.2990 of 2011 :: 2 :: request for time to pay the fine, that alone, dispensing with notice to the 1 st respondent/complainant, the inordinate delay was condoned. 3. When the revision came up for consideration today, the learned counsel seeks issue of notice to the 1 st respondent to explore the possibility of having some reduction in the amount of fine by way of alteration of the fine into compensation. I do not find any merit in the plea now canvassed for which goes against the representation made earlier seeking condonation of the delay. The only question is whether further time has to be provided to the petitioner/accused to pay the sum fixed as fine. Cheque amount is Rs.27,500/- and that alone, has been awarded as fine. Cheque was issued as early as in 2006. When that be so, prima facie, there is no merit in asking for any time as well. However, the petitioner/accused is Crl.R.P.No.2990 of 2011 :: 3 :: granted three weeks from today, to pay the fine, to avoid his incarceration of the default term of imprisonment fixed by the court below. If the fine is not remitted within the aforesaid period of three weeks, the magistrate shall forthwith take steps to execute the sentence in accordance with law. Revision is disposed of as above. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.