IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2011 / 26TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1995 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- [AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DTD. 08/07/2011 IN CRL.A.NO.243/2008 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK COURT-III) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND JUDGMENT DATED 12/03/2008 IN CC.NO.169/2005 OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ATTINGAL] .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------------- VENUGOPALAN, S/O.LATE APPUKUTTAN PILLAI, GIRIJA MANDIRAM, ARUVIKKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. INDU M.R., D/O.LATE RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, THULASI MANDIRAM, AVANAVANCHERRY P.O., ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 011. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.1995 OF 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 17th 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, for short, the 'N.I.Act', concurrently, by the two inferior courts. Substantive term of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner had been modified in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge limiting it to imprisonment for a day till the rising of the court, retaining the direction to pay the compensation with the default term. 2. When the revision came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that he has no challenge against the conviction and sentence, but only a request for some more time to pay off the compensation and, thus, avoid the default term of imprisonment. Cheque involved in the case is dated 20.04.2007 and the amount covered Crl.R.P.No.1995/2011 2 thereunder was Rs.1,90,000/-. Considering the time lag after the dishonour of the cheque and also prosecution resulting in the conviction of the accused, I find there is no merit in the request made for further extension of time to pay off the compensation awarded. 3. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – I, Attingal on 17.10.2011 to serve out the substantive term of imprisonment for a day till the rising of the court and to report the 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 the sentence. 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