IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1766 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.414/2009 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM ST.1315/2008 of .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------ RAJESH PANICKER, MYCOM SYSTEMS, OPP. Q.R.S. PLAMMOOD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.SAJI MATHEW SRI.DENU JOSEPH SRI.ANTONY XAVIER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. M/S. S.R.S.ASSOCIATES, A/12 B, ALTHARA NAGAR, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. SRIKANTH, S/O. LATE VISWANATHAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, S.R.S.ASSOCIATES, A/12B, ALTHARA NAGAR, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 102. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR M.R.VENUGOPAL THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.1766 OF 2011 (A) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2011 O R D E R Though notice was ordered on the revision to the 1st respondent/complainant, without admitting the revision on file, and it has returned unserved, in view of the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner that no challenge against the conviction and sentence is proposed to be canvassed for, I find, further notice to the 1st respondent/complainant can be dispensed with. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is only a request for some more time to pay the compensation fixed and, thus, avoid the default term of imprisonment. As there is no challenge against the conviction and sentence, no dilation on those aspects with reference to the findings entered by the two courts below is called for. 2. So far as the request made by the counsel, it is seen that the three cheques, which gave rise to the prosecution and, ultimately, the conviction of the accused, all of them, were drawn Crl.R.P.No.1766/2011 2 in the month of January, 2008. When such be the case, normally, the request for further extension of time, at this stage, cannot be entertained. However, having regard to the submissions made by the counsel, highlighting the extenuating circumstances in favour of the petitioner/accused, to have extension of time, there will be a direction the learned Magistrate to keep in abeyance the execution of the sentence for a period of two months from today. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - X, Thiruvananthapuram on 18.10.2011 to serve out the substantive term of imprisonment for a day, till the rising of the court and also to report the payment of the compensation. In default of his appearance and non-payment of the compensation, the learned Magistrate shall execute the sentence taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. With the above directions, the revision is disposed of. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp Crl.R.P.No.1766/2011 3