IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2000 of 2011() ----------------------------------------- CRA.387/2010 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC - I), KOTTAYAM ST.210/2010 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - II,ETTUMANUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------ UNNIKRISHNAN.A.V,ARAKULATHIL HOUSE, PARAPPUR PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT ,PIN 680 552. BY ADVS. SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA SRI.SAJEEVAN KURUKKUTTIYULLATHIL RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KEALA,REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. M.A.SHAJI,S/O.ACHUTHAN,CHITTAKATTU HOUSE ETTUMANOOR PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C.NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.2000 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August 2011 ORDER The revision is by the accused convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, NI Act), concurrently by the two inferior courts. The trial Magistrate, negativing the plea of not guilty, on his conviction, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a day, till the rising of the court and to pay compensation of `2,05,000/- to the complainant with default term of simple imprisonment for three months more. The learned Sessions Judge turned down his appeal confirming the conviction and sentence without any modification. Feeling aggrieved, the revision petitioner/accused has filed this revision. 2. When the revision came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that he has no arguments on merits to challenge the conviction and sentence, but, only a request for some more time to pay the compensation and, thus, avoid the default term of imprisonment. Cheque involved in the case is seen dated 05-05-2008. Taking note of the timelag, a decade, after drawing of the cheque giving rise to the prosecution and ultimately the conviction of the accused, apparently, there is no merit in the request made for further extension of time. Crl.R.P. No.2000 OF 2011 2 3. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 24-10-2011 to serve out the substantive term of imprisonment for a day, till the rising of the court, and to report the payment of compensation. Till the date fixed as above for his appearance, the learned Magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of sentence. Amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner/accused towards the compensation awarded shall be given credit to. In default of his appearance and nonpayment of compensation, the learned Magistrate shall execute the sentence taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. Revision is disposed of. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge