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. 2812 of 2011() ------------------------------------ CRA.506/2010 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT(ADHOC-II),ERNAKULAM CC.824/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 1 & 2. ------------------------------------------------------- 1. MONYPLUS CHITS & FINANCE CO. (P) LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, OFFICE 32/1612, FIRST FLOOR, PALLISSERY ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI - 25. 2. MANI T. MUNDAT, AGED 51 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, MONYPLUS CHITS & FINANCE CO. (P) LTD.,OFFICE 32/1612, FIRST FLOOR, PALLISSERY ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI - 25. BY ADVS. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. SRI.VARUGHESE M EASO SRI.P.J.VINOD JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MATHEW T. OOMMEN, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.T.M.OOMMEN, L/66, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O. KALAMASSERY, KOCHI - 682 033. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. 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: svs S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2812 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2011 O R D E R Revision is by the accused, who has been convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 {for short ‘the Act’} concurrently by two courts below. First accused is a company and 2nd accused is its Managing Director. Sentence has been imposed only against the 2nd accused, which as modified by the Sessions Judge in appeal is imprisonment till the rising of the court with direction to pay a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- as compensation to the complainant with default term of simple imprisonment for three month more. 2. The revision coming up for consideration today, the learned counsel for the petitioners/ accused submitted that he has no challenge against Crl.R.P.No.2812 of 2011 :: 2 :: the conviction and sentence, but only a request to be be made for grant of three month's time to pay the compensation and thus, to avoid the default term of imprisonment imposed against the 2nd accused. Cheque involved in the case is dated 03.10.2008 and the amount covered by the instrument is Rs.1,00,000/-. Time lag after the commencement of the prosecution and that too continued in three forums primarily deter and prevent this court from granting any further time for payment. 3. However, considering the submissions made by the counsel pointing out the extenuating circumstances in favour of the 2nd accused to seek extension of time applied for, I find, a short time, as indicated hereunder can be provided to the 2nd accused to enable him to pay the compensation and thus avoid the default term of imprisonment. Crl.R.P.No.2812 of 2011 :: 3 :: 4. Affirming the conviction and sentence, the 2nd accused is directed to appear before the magistrate on 15.02.2012, to serve out the imprisonment till the rising of the court and to report the payment of compensation. The magistrate shall keep in abeyance the execution of the sentence till the date fixed as above for his appearance, to enable him to pay the compensation 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 above. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.