IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2011 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2459 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.891/2010 of IST ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE CC.377/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- M.K.SUKURAJAN, S/O.KELU,MAPPILAKANDY PARAMBA, P.O.KUTHIRAVATTOM,KOZHIKODE-16 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN SRI.HANSON.P.MATHEW SRI.P.V.ANOOP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SREEGOKULAM CHITS & FINANCE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED NO.66,ARCOT ROAD, CHENNAI 600 024. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. ADV. SMT.A.SREEKALA FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR T.R.RAJESH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,J ------------------------------------------ Crl.R.P.No.2459 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of December, 2011 ORDER Revision is by the accused in a cheque case, who has been convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act'), concurrently by the two courts below. Sentence imposed against the accused, as modified by the sessions judge in appeal, is imprisonment till rising of the court with direction to pay the fine amount of `.4,03,000/-, with default term of simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Fine amount if realised was directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant. 2. The revision coming up for consideration today, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that he has no arguments on merits to assail the conviction, but only against the sentence imposing substantive term of imprisonment, for its modification, with a request for grant of six months time to pay the compensation fixed, and, thus, avoid the default term of imprisonment. Further extension of time for payment of compensation requested for is opposed by the counsel for the complainant contending that the cheque involved in the case was dated 15.1.2009 and it had been issued towards the discharge of Crl.R.P.No.2459 of 2011 2 liability arising under two chities prized by him. No part of the amount has been paid till date is also pointed out by the counsel to contend that there is no bonafides in seeking further time for payment. However, it is fairly submitted that complainant does not stand in the way of granting reasonable time for payment as deemed fit and proper. 3. Affirming the conviction, sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused, he is directed to appear before the magistrate on 5.3.2012 to serve out the imprisonment till the rising of the court, and to report the payment of the compensation. The magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of the sentence till the date fixed above for his appearance. In default of his appearance and non-payment of the compensation, the magistrate shall execute the sentence, taking appropriate steps, in accordance with law. Revision is disposed of as indicated above. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. pm/