IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1824 of 2011() -------------------------------------------- CRA.NO.20/2010 of SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.NO.878/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------------------------------------------------------- P.S.MOHAMMED RAFEEK, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.SULAIMAN P.A., PUTHANPEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, PALLIPADI, KARIMBA POST, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MUTHOOT LEASING AND FINANCE LTD., 1ST FLOOR, A.V.PLAZA, R.S.ROAD, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY MANAGER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.P.SATHEESAN,AGED 53,S/O.N.K.NAMBOODIRIPAD LAKSHMI PRASADAM, PALLATH MADHAM, KODAKARA, THRISSUR-PIN- 680 684. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.PIN-682 031. R1 BY ADV. SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA SRI.V.B.HARINARAYANAN R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA.R. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl. R.P No.1824 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of November 2011 ORDER Revision is by the accused, who has been convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act'), concurrently by the two courts below. 2. Notice given, 1st respondent/ complainant has entered appearance. 3. When the revision came up for consideration today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused seeks for only some more time to pay the compensation fixed and, thus, avoid the default term of imprisonment. Since there is no challenge against the conviction, no inquiry thereof with reference to the findings entered by the courts below is called for. Still, going through the judgments rendered by the learned magistrate and also the learned sessions judge, I find, conviction of the accused is based on unimpeachable legal evidence. Cheque involved in the case is dated 09-10-2007 and the sum covered by the instrument is `.4,13,500/-. The timelag after the commencement of the prosecution and also the sum covered by the instrument as indicated above, in fact, deter this court from acceding to the request made by the counsel to provide further extension of time for payment of the Crl.R.P No.1824 OF 2011 2 compensation fixed. However, having regard to the submissions made by the counsel, pointing out the extenuating circumstance available in favour of the accused to seek for time, I find, a short period, as indicated hereunder, can be provided to enable him to pay the compensation within such period and, thus, avoid the default term of imprisonment. 4. Affirming the conviction, and sentence imposed against the accused he is directed to appear before the magistrate on 13-02-2012 to serve out the imprisonment till the rising of the court and to report payment of compensation. The magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of sentence imposed against the accused 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 nonpayment of the compensation, the learned magistrate shall execute the sentence taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. Revision disposed of. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge