IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2577 of 2011() ------------------------------------------- CRA.390/2006 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY STC.5560/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, TALIPARAMBA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------- SMT.SAKUNTHALA, W/O. PANKAJAKSHAN, AGED 36 YEARS, HOUSE NO.403, HAJI QUARTERS, PANNEN PARA, POST PALLIKKUNNU, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.R.LEELA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JANATHA STEEL, THALIPARAMBA, REPRESENTED BY THE PROPRIETOR K.V.MAHAMOOD FIROS, S/O. MUHAMMED RASHAD, NATIONAL HIGHWAY, THALIPARAMBA, PIN-670 141. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RAJAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.2577 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October 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 courts below. Sentence imposed against the accused, as modified by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal, is imprisonment till the rising of the court with direction to pay compensation of `.1,00,000/- to the complainant with default term of simple imprisonment for three months. 2. When the revision came up for consideration, 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 to be made for grant of six months time to pay the compensation fixed and awarded, and, thus, avoid the default term of imprisonment. 3. Going through the judgments rendered by both the courts below, I find, conviction of the accused is based on unimpeachable legal evidence. Since there is no challenge against he conviction, no dilation thereof with reference to the judgments rendered by the two courts below is called for. With respect to the request made for grant of six months time to pay the compensation fixed, it is Crl.R.P No.2577 OF 2011 2 seen, the cheque involved, the dishonour of which had gave rise to the prosecution and ultimately the conviction of the accused, is dated 01-06-2003 and the sum covered by that instrument is `.1,00,000/-. Considering the aforesaid circumstances with the time lag after the commencement of the prosecution, prima facie, there is no merit in the request made for further extension of time to pay the compensation fixed and awarded. However, taking into account the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner/accused, highlighting the extenuating circumstances available in favour of the accused, who is a lady, to seek for further extension of time, I find, a short period as indicated hereunder can be granted. 5. Affirming the conviction and sentence, petitioner/accused is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 07-02-2012 to serve out the imprisonment till the rising of the court and to report payment of compensation. The learned Magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of sentence till the date fixed as above for her appearance, to enable her to pay the compensation within such period. In default of her appearance and nonpayment of the compensation within the time fixed, the 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