IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2011 / 26TH ASWINA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2036 of 2011() ---------------------------- CRA.294/2009 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK COURT - I), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ST.614/2008 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-X, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ................. REVISION PETITIONER / APPELLANT / ACCUSED : -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SALIM, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (WORLD BANK PROJECT), NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. P.T.JOJO, S/O.THANKAPPAN, PUTHUVALVILAKAM VEEDU, EDEN GARDEN, POTHUJANAM LANE, KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695 006. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEENA R. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.2036 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of October 2011 ORDER The 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 courts below. Sentence imposed against the accused, as affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal, is simple imprisonment for three months with direction to pay fine of `.50,000/- to the complainant with default term of simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. Notice given, the 1st respondent has entered appearance. When the revision came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused submitted that he has no arguments on merits to assail the conviction, but, only against the sentence imposing substantive term of imprisonment, and also a request to be made for grant of some more time to pay the fine awarded and, thus, avoid the default term of imprisonment. 3. Having regard to the fact that the accused is convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act for the reason of dishonour of a cheque issued by him, I find, in the absence of exceptional circumstances justifying his incarceration in prison for a term, sentence can be reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court. I find no exceptional circumstance has been made out in the case Crl.R.P No.2036 OF 2011 - 2 - warranting imposition of the imprisonment for a term as against the revision petitioner/accused. 4. So far as the request made for grant of further time, it is seen, the cheque was dated 05-04-2008 and the sum covered by that instrument is `.50,000/-. Considering the time lag, prima facie, there is no merit in the request made for further extension of time. However, taking into account the submissions made by the counsel, I find, some more time as indicated hereunder can be granted to the accused to pay the fine. 5. Affirming the conviction, sentence imposed against the accused is modified and reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court retaining the sum of fine awarded with the default term of imprisonment fixed and awarded. Accused is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 12-12-2011 to serve out the imprisonment, till the rising of the court, and to report payment of the fine. The learned Magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of sentence till the date fixed as above for his appearance. In default of his appearance and nonpayment of the fine, the learned Magistrate shall execute the sentence taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. Revision disposed of. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge