IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2011 / 4TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1829 of 2011() ----------------------------------------- CRA.179/2010 of SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.192/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------ P.VISWANATHAN, S/O.LATE A.M.MENON, AGED 55 YRS., JANANI, GANESH NAGAR, KALPATHI, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. S.CHANDRASEKHARA PRABHU, S/O.SATHYANARAYANAN, AGED 48 YRS., 31/943, PATTIKKARA STREET, PALAKKAD. 678 101. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. 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 26/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.1829 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of July 2011 ORDER The revision is by the accused convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, NI Act), concurrently, by the two inferior courts. When the revision came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused submitted that no argument on merits is sought to be addressed, but, only a request for extension of time to pay the fine awarded and, thus, to avoid the default term of imprisonment. 2. Going through the judgments rendered by the courts below, I find, conviction of the revision petitioner has been founded on unimpeachable legal evidence which consisted that of the complainant and the materials produced by him alone. Cheque amount involved is only Rs.25,000/-, and that instrument is dated 24-11-2008. When such be the case, there is no merit in the plea made for further extension of time to pay the fine awarded by the court on finding the accused guilty of the offence. Still, having regard to the submissions made by the counsel, the Magistrate concerned is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of sentence for a period of one month from today. Petitioner is directed to appear Crl.R.P No.1829/2011 - 2 - before the Magistrate on 02-09-2011 to serve out the substantive term of imprisonment for one day, till the rising of the court, and also to report the payment of fine awarded. In default of his appearance or nonpayment of the fine, the Magistrate concerned shall take appropriate steps to execute the sentence in accordance with law. Revision is disposed of. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge