IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2011 / 7TH BHADRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2062 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.233/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, TRIVANDRUM ST.946/2006 of .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- B.SUGATHAN,KRA 36(A),SAYOOGYA, KUTTIKATTIL LANE,KAIMANAM,PAPANAMCODE, MANJULLIMALYIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- 1. K.SASIDHARAN,SWEET HOME,VAZHAYILA, CHRIST NAGAR,KARUKULAM PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 564. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B. JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: AMG S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.2062 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of August 2011 ORDER Revision is by the accused who has been convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, NI Act), concurrently, by the two inferior courts. 2. When the revision came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused submitted that no arguments on merits is sought to be addressed as against the conviction and sentence, but, only a request to be made for granting six months time to pay the compensation fixed, to avoid the default term of imprisonment. 3. Modifying the substantive term of imprisonment imposed against the accused by the learned Magistrate, in appeal, the learned Sessions Judge has directed him to undergo imprisonment for one day, till the rising of the court, retaining the compensation awarded with default term of imprisonment fixed thereof. Cheque involved in the case is dated 28-11-2004. Dishonour of that instrument had given raise to the prosecution and ultimately the conviction of the accused. Having regard to the time lag after the making of that instrument, and the continuance of the prosecution thereafter, despite the conviction Crl.R.P No.2062 OF 2011 - 2 - entered against the petitioner/accused by the learned Magistrate, I find, there is no merit in the request made for further time to pay the compensation. However, having regard to the submissions made by the counsel, I find, some more time can be extended to the accused, as indicated hereunder to pay the compensation. 4. Affirming the conviction and sentence, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 03-10-2011 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 the sentence. 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. vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE