IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 7TH ASWINA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2325 of 2011() -------------------------------------- CRA.146/2008 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR(MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA) ST.235/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED : ---------------------------------------------------------------- UMMER, S/O. SAIDU MUHAMMED, PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, P.O.VATANAPPILLY, PAZHANJI, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE : -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.V.RAJAN, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, KUTTICHAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.VELLANKALLUR, THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ln S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.2325 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September 2011 ORDER Revision is by the accused convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, NI Act), concurrently, by the two inferior courts. Sentence imposed against the accused, as modified by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal, is imprisonment for a day, till the rising of the court and to pay compensation of `.2,50,000/- to the complainant with default term of simple imprisonment for three months. 2. When the revision came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused submitted that he has no arguments on merits to assail the conviction and sentence, but, only a request to be made for some more time to pay the compensation and, thus, avoid the default term of imprisonment. Cheque involved in the case is dated 26-07-2004 and the sum covered by that instrument is `.2,40,000/-. What has been awarded in appeal is only `.2,50,000/-. No part of the compensation, admittedly, has been paid to the complainant till date. When such be the case, prima facie, there is no merit in the request made for further extension of time to pay the compensation. However, taking note of the plead for granting some more time to the accused, stating that he is now Crl.R.P No.2325/2011 - 2 - facing financial difficulties, I find, some more time as indicated hereunder can be granted to effect the payment. 3. Affirming the conviction and sentence, the accused is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 01-12-2011 to serve out the imprisonment for a day, till the rising of the court and to report payment of the compensation. The learned Magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of sentence till the date fixed as above for appearance. In default of his appearance and nonpayment of the compensation, the learned Magistrate shall execute the sentence taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. Revision is disposed of. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge