IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2011 / 17TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1811 of 2011() ------------------------------------------- CRA.232/2008 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), KALPETTA ST.457/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, SULTHANBATHERY .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------------------------- SEEMON, S/O. ULAHANNAN, CHELAKKATTIL HOUSE, AMARAKUNI. P.O., PADICHIRA, PULPALLY, BATHERY. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SRI.JOHNY THOMAS. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JOSEPH, S/O. DEVASSYA, PANIKULAM HOUSE, AMARAKUNI. P.O., PADICHIRA AMSOM DESOM, PULPALLY, BATHERY-673 592. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.AMJAD ALI, SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.SABU SREEDHARAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1811 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of August, 2011 O R D E R Revision is by the accused convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 {for short 'the Act'}, concurrently by the two inferior courts. 2. When the revision came up for consideration, after giving notice to the respondent/complainant, who has entered appearance through a counsel, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that he has no arguments to be advanced against the conviction, but only over the sentence awarded, with respect to the substantive term of imprisonment imposed and also a request for indulgence of this court to have extension of time to pay off the compensation awarded and thus, avoid the default term of imprisonment. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant has no objection in modifying the substantive term of imprisonment and granting reasonable time to pay off the compensation. 3. Considering the submissions made as aforesaid and taking Crl.R.P.No.1811 of 2011 :: 2 :: note of the fact that the dishonour of the cheque giving rise to the prosecution and also the conviction of the accused need not be viewed as a grave offence warranting imprisonment for a substantive term as part of the sentence, in the absence of exceptional circumstance, which is quite absent in the present case, imprisonment for the term imposed on the petitioner/accused calls for reduction to imprisonment for one day, till the rising of the court. Cheque involved in the case is seen dated 9.11.2006. When that be the case, prima facie, there is no merit in the plea for further extension of time to pay off the compensation. 4. Petitioner is directed to appear before the magistrate on 17.10.2011 to serve out the substantive term of imprisonment for one day, till the rising of the court, and also report the payment of the compensation. The magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of the sentence, till the date fixed for appearance. In default of appearance and non-payment of the compensation, the learned Magistrate shall execute the sentence, taking appropriate steps, in accordance with law. Revision is disposed of as indicated above. Crl.R.P.No.1811 of 2011 :: 3 :: Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.