IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 29TH BHADRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2080 of 2011(D) -------------------------------------------- [CRL.A.NO.491/2009 OF I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD DTD. 22/10/2010, ST.NO.1835/2007 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PALAKKAD, DTD. 28/07/2009] .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------- G.PEETHAMBARAN, S/O.GOPALAN, KUMARANCHARATH KALAM, PONNAMBILAKKAL, KOLAVANMUKKU, KUZHALMANNAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN (PALAKKAD). RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. A.DIVAKARAN, S/O.LATE K.APPUNNI, KUNDUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUTHANOOR P.O., ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 721. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN, R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.R. VENUGOPAL. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/09/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl. R.P No.2080 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of September 2011 ORDER 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 inferior courts. The learned Magistrate, on his conviction, has sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation of `.75,000/- with default term of simple imprisonment for two months more. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, affirming the conviction, modified the sentence vacating the substantive term of imprisonment imposed and altering compensation as to one of fine enhancing it to `.76,000/- with direction to pay `.75,000/-, if fine amount released as compensation to the complainant. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has preferred this revision. 2. Notice given, the first respondent/ complainant has entered appearance. 3. When the revision came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that he has no arguments to be canvassed as against the conviction, but only a request to be made for some more time to pay the amount fixed as fine. Cheque amount Crl. R.P No.2080/2011 - 2 - involved is `.75,000/- and the amount ordered to be paid as fine by modification of the sentence in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, as already indicated, is `.76,000/-. Cheque involved in the case, the dishonour of which had led to the prosecution of the accused, is dated 13-05-2004. When that be the case, prima facie, there is no merit in the request made for further extension of time for payment of fine. However, taking into consideration the submissions made by the counsel, time for two months from today is granted for payment of the fine. The learned Magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of sentence against the accused for the aforesaid period. In default of payment of fine within such period, the learned Magistrate shall execute the sentence taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. Subject to the above direction, the revision is disposed of. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge