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. 1604 of 2011() ------------------------------ {IN CRA.240/2008 OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), PATHANAMTHITTA IN ST.1737/2006 OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS COURT-II,PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------------------------------------------- K. OMANA, FOREMAN, PARAYIL CHITTY FUND, RESIDING AT VILAYIL HOUSE, VAKAYAR.P.O, KONNI VILAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.E.M.MURUGAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SAHADEVAN, S/O. VELUTHAKUNJU, MURALIMANDIRAM, POOTHAMKARA.P.O, ENADIMANGALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA. 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 BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1604 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of July, 2011 O R D E R The revision is by the accused convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the Act”), concurrently, by two inferior courts. 2. The trial magistrate, on conviction of the accused, who is a lady, has sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,40,000/-, with default term of simple imprisonment for one month. In the appeal preferred by the accused, the learned Sessions Judge, while confirming the conviction, modified the sentence limiting the substantive term of imprisonment to one day till the rising of the court, retaining the fine amount, but with a default term of six months. Crl.R.P.No.1604 of 2011 :: 2 :: 3. When the revision challenging the conviction and sentence, as aforesaid, came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused submitted that no arguments on merits is sought to be addressed, but only a request for extension of time to pay off the fine amount and, thus, avoid the default term of imprisonment. 4. Going through the judgments rendered by the learned magistrate and also the learned Sessions Judge, it is seen, the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Act has been entered on unimpeachable legal evidence, which consisted of the evidence tendered by the complainant, that alone. So far as the sentence imposed for which the accused was found guilty and convicted, evidently, sufficient leniency has been extended by the learned Sessions Judge, though the default term imposed, in the event of non-realisation of the Crl.R.P.No.1604 of 2011 :: 3 :: fine, appears to be on a bit higher side. The cheque involved in the case is dated 16.08.2006. Almost five years is being completed after the issue of the cheque, which has led to the prosecution of the accused on its dishonour is, no doubt, a material circumstance to be taken into account in considering the plea for further extension of time to pay off the fine imposed on conviction of the accused. Still, having regard to the submissions canvassed by the counsel, the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Pathanamthitta is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of the sentence imposed against the accused for a period of six weeks from today. 6. As indicated earlier, the default term of imprisonment imposed against the accused, who is a lady, in the event of non-payment of the fine is on the higher side and it is reduced to a period of three months. Crl.R.P.No.1604 of 2011 :: 4 :: 7. The accused is directed to appear before the magistrate on 10.10.2011 to serve out the substantive term of imprisonment for one day, till the rising of the court and to report the payment of the fine. In default of his appearance and non-payment of the compensation, the magistrate shall take appropriate 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.