IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2011 / 17TH POUSHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 44 of 2011() -------------------------------- CRA.266/2010 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA CC.195/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------------- SHAJU.K.D., AGED 31, S/O. DEVASSY, KAITHARATH HOUSE, ELINJIPRA, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.SHEEJO CHACKO SRI.A.G.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S. PREMIER AUTO CREDITS, MUVATTUPUZHA ARAMANA COMPLEX, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND RECOVERY MANAGER P.K. JANARDHANAN NAIR. PIN-686 661. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.44 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2011. O R D E R The accused in a prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I.Act') approached this Court by preferring the above revision petition challenging his conviction and sentence, imposed as per judgments of the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as counsel for the respondents. 3. As this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction recorded by the courts below, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, the revision petitioner is a driver by profession and he met with an accident and is totally bed-ridden and he is not in a position to deposit the fine amount, unless a breathing time is granted. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances involved in the case and in the light of the above submission, I am of the view 2 Crl.R.P.No.44 of 2011 that a breathing time can be granted to the revision petitioner to deposit the fine amount. Thus while confirming the conviction and sentence ordered by the courts below, the petitioner can be granted 3 months time to receive the sentence of imprisonment and to pay the fine amount. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I.Act as recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, while confirming the conviction and sentence ordered by the courts below, the petitioner is granted 3 months time from today to receive the sentence of imprisonment and to deposit the fine amount. It is made clear that the default sentence fixed by the courts below will attract only in case of failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing and in depositing the fine amount, within the above period. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on or before 11.04.2011 to receive the sentence of imprisonment and to deposit the fine amount. If there is any failure on the part of the 3 Crl.R.P.No.44 of 2011 revision petitioner in appearing before the trial court on or before 11.04.2011 to receive the sentence and to deposit the fine amount, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the petitioner shall be deferred till 11.04.2011. Criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/