IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1802 of 2011() ----------------------------------------- CRA.659/2007 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM ST.380/2006 of THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-VII, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S.IVA SYSTEMS (P) LTD., 2ND FLOOR, N.N.M.BUILDINGS, NALANCHIRA (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR AJI.S. 2. AJI.S, PROPRIETOR, M/S.IVA SYSTEMS (P) LTD., 2ND FLOOR, N.N.M.BUILDINGS, NALANCHIRA (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.G.P.SHINOD RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AT THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. 2. M/S.AGA TECH INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS (P) LTD., REVATHI, TC 13/1145(3), KANNAMMOOLA, MEDICAL COLLEGE (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, BALAMURALI.B. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C.NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------ Crl. R.P No. 1802 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2011. O R D E R Revision is filed by the accused convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for short, the 'NI Act' concurrently, by the two inferior Courts. When the revision came up for admission the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that no argument on merits is sought to be addressed against the conviction, but only a request for extension of time to pay the fine awarded and then, avoid the default term of imprisonment imposed. Learned Sessions Judge in appeal confirmed the conviction rendered by the trial Magistrate has directed the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for one day till rising of court, and to pay Rs.1,80,000/- as fine, with default term to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 18 days. I find too much leniency has been extended by the learned Sessions Judge, at least in the matter of punishment provided as default term in the event of non payment of fine of sum of Rs.1,80,000/-. Whatever that be, the only question is to be considered in revision is the merit of the request made on behalf of the accused for further time to pay off the fine. The cheque in the case is dated 30-09-2003. That Crl. R. P No.1802/2011 -2- circumstances, necessarily has to be taken note whether any further extension could be granted as asked for. However, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in support of her the plea for extension of time submits that the second accused is the proprietor of the 1st accused, a running concern, and if sufficient time is not granted he may have no other go but to closed down his business and suffer the default term of imprisonment. 2. Considering the submissions made I grant the accused 2 months time to pay off the fine awarded. The learned Magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of the sentence against the accused for a period of two months from today. 3. The second accused shall appear before the Magistrate on 04-10-2011 to serve out the imprisonment for one day, till the rising of the Court, and also to report the payment of fine as fixed. In default of his appearance and non payment of fine, the Magistrate concerned shall take necessary steps to execute the sentence in accordance with law. Revision petition is disposed of. Sd/- S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE AMG True copy P.A to Judge