IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2011 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2687 of 2011() ------------------------------------ CRA.31/2009 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.1232/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S):APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------------- V. MANOHARAN, KOTTOOR VEEDU, NEAR VANCHIMUKKU, PERUMPUZHA P.O., KUNDARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR SMT.P.T.RAZEENA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. V. SURESHKUMAR, S/O. VASU PILLAI, SREEDEVI MANDIRAM, MADANTHANKODE, NELLIMUKKU P.O., KUZHIMATHICADU - 691 509. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RAJESH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2687 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of December, 2011 O R D E R 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 is payment of fine directing him to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/-, the cheque amount with default term of simple imprisonment for six months. Fine, if realised, was directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant. 2. Notice was ordered to the complainant, but it has not been served till date. The revision coming up for consideration today, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that he has no arguments on merits against the conviction and sentence, but only a request for Crl.R.P.No.2687 of 2011 :: 2 :: grant of three months time and, thus avoid the default term of imprisonment. As the grant of time, that alone, is canvassed for, which is within the discretion of the court, I find, awaiting completion of service on 2nd respondent, to dispose of the revision, is not called for. Cheque involved is drawn on 20.2.2005. The dishonour of that instrument led to the prosecution of the accused and ultimately his conviction. The amount of the cheque alone has been directed to be paid as compensation. When that be so, there is no merit in the request for further time to pay the fine fixed by the court as punishment against the accused. However, taking into account the submission made by the learned counsel pointing out the financial difficulties faced by the accused at present, I find, a short time, as indicated hereunder, can be provided to the accused for payment of the fine to avoid his incarceration. Crl.R.P.No.2687 of 2011 :: 3 :: 3. Affirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner/ accused is granted time till 15.02.2012 to pay the fine, and thus avoid the default term of imprisonment. The magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of the sentence till the date fixed above, to enable him to pay the fine within such period. In default of payment of the fine within the time fixed above, the magistrate shall execute the sentence taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. Revision is disposed of as indicated above. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.