IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2011 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2662 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.361/2010 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, OTTAPALAM ST.273/2008 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - II,OTTAPALAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- SULAIMAN, S/O.ASSANAR, ANUGRAHA LOTTERY AGENCY, GOLDEN PLAZA, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K., SRI.LIJU. M.P. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & NON-PARTY: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.K. RAJAGOPALAN, S/O.AMMU AMMA, MALLISHERI KALATHIL, ARIYUR THEKUMURI DESOM, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 101. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. KOCHUMOL KODUVATH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2662 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd 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 as modified by the Sessions Judge in appeal is imprisonment till the rising of the court, with direction to pay the cheque amount as compensation to the complainant. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has preferred this revision. 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 and sentence, but only a request for grant of some more time to pay the compensation. The Sessions Judge in appeal, it is seen, while reducing the substantive term of imprisonment to imprisonment till the rising of the court, retaining the compensation Crl.R.P.No.2662 of 2011 :: 2 :: awarded, has not passed any order, if the compensation is not paid. Appropriate sentence in the event of default of payment of compensation, no doubt, should have been provided, which otherwise, would cause hardship to the complainant. If no default term of imprisonment is provided, where payment of compensation is not effected, proceedings under Section 421 of the Code for realisation of such sum, as if it were a fine, could be only as against the properties of the accused. That would take its own time if such an eventuality and steps in that event require to be taken. So much so, that also has to be taken into account. Still considering the request by the counsel for further time to pay the compensation, a short period can be provided, as indicated hereunder to the revision petitioner/accused to pay the compensation. 3. Affirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused, it is made clear that in the event of default of payment of the compensation, the Crl.R.P.No.2662 of 2011 :: 3 :: accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. 4. Petitioner is directed to appear before the magistrate on 16.01.2012 to serve out the imprisonment till the rising of the court, and to report the payment of compensation. The magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of the sentence till the date fixed above for his appearance, to enable him to pay the amount within such period. 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. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.