IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 16TH BHADRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1756 of 2011() ------------------------------ STC.1015/2005 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,THALASSERY CRA.166/2006 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC 1), THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED/APPELLANT: ------------------------------------------------------------ T.SULAIKHA, D/O.UMMER, THAZHAYIL HOUSE (REHMANIYA MANZIL) P.O.PANOOR, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT - STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. A.K.HARIDASAN, S/O.SANKARAN NAMBIAR, ACHUKULANGARA HOUSE, P.O.THOOVAKKUNNU PO 670 693. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN 682 031. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl. R.P No.1756 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th 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. The trial Magistrate has sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a sum of Rs.42,000/- as compensation to the complainant with default term of simple imprisonment for 14 days. The learned Sessions Judge, affirming the conviction and sentence, turned down his appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has preferred this revision. 2. On the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that sentence alone is challenged with request for time, notice was ordered to the 1st respondent/ complainant in the revision. Though notice served, the complainant has not entered appearance. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded for modification of the substantive term of imprisonment imposed against the accused, which directs for his incarceration in prison for a period of three months apart from directing payment of compensation with default term. Time for payment as requested earlier was also canvassed by the counsel to pay the compensation. Crl. R.P No.1756/2011 - 2 - 4. Going through the judgments rendered by the learned Magistrate and also the learned Sessions Judge, I find, no special circumstance has been made out in the case warranting the imposition of a prison term, as fixed by the courts below, against the accused who was found guilty and convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. I am of the view that imprisonment for a day, in modification of the term fixed by the court below would suffice the ends of justice. 5. So far as the request for further time to pay the cheque amount, it is noticed that the cheque involved in the case is dated 27-02-2005 and the amount covered is Rs.40,000/-. The timelag that has taken place after the dishonour of the cheque, prima facie, disentitles the accused to seek for further extension of time to pay the compensation fixed by the court. However, taking into account the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused canvassing the extenuating circumstances in his favour to seek for extension of time, I find, some more time as indicated hereunder can be provided to effect payment of compensation. 6. Affirming the conviction, sentence imposed against the accused is modified reducing it to imprisonment for a day, till the rising of the court, and to pay the compensation fixed and awarded Crl. R.P No.1756/2011 - 3 - with a default term of simple imprisonment for one month. Petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 14-11-2011 to serve out the substantive term of imprisonment for a day, till the rising of the court, and to report payment of the compensation. Till the date fixed as above for his appearance, the learned Magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of sentence. In default of his appearance and nonpayment of the compensation, the 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