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. 2538 of 2011() ------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31/03/2011 IN CRMP.652/2011 IN CRA.56/2011 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM ST.118/2009 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - II,ETTUMANUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------ BINOY VARGHESE,KALATHILPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUZHIPURAYIDAM,MANARCADU P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SMT.REVATHY P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.-01. 2. SONY GEORGE S/O.GEORGE,VAITHUNDATHIL HOUSE, PUNNATHURA WEST P.O.,PIN-686 631. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA.R. 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.2538 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. The trial Magistrate, on his conviction, has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court, and to pay compensation of `.5,05,000/- with default term of simple imprisonment for three months. 2. The appeal preferred by the petitioner/accused, with a petition to condone the delay of 350 days, was turned down by the learned Sessions Judge, not being satisfied of the grounds canvassed for condoning the delay. Challenge in the revision is against the rejection of the appeal as time barred by the learned Sessions Judge declining to condone the delay in entertaining such appeal. 3. Revision before this court was also filed with a petition to condone delay of 39 days. Notice on that delay petition was ordered to the 2nd respondent/ complainant. After service, the 2nd respondent has elected to remain absent. Being satisfied of the Crl.R.P No.2538 OF 2011 2 grounds canvassed for condoning the delay, the revision was ordered to be numbered and taken on file. 4. After numbering of the revision, hearing the counsel for the petitioner, notice was again ordered to the 2nd respondent. Notice was served, but, still, the 2nd respondent has not entered appearance. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that he has no arguments on merits to assail the conviction and sentence, but, only a request to be made for grant of three months time to pay the compensation fixed and awarded. Since there is no challenge against the conviction and also the sentence, no dilation thereof with reference to the judgments rendered by the two courts below is called for. So far as the request made for grant of time, having regard to the sum involved, `.5,05,000/-, fixed and awarded as compensation payable to the complainant, I find, the period sought for can be granted. 6. Affirming the conviction and sentence petitioner/accused is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 06-02-2012 to serve out the imprisonment till the rising of the court, and to report payment of the compensation. The learned Magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of sentence till the date fixed as above for Crl.R.P No.2538 OF 2011 3 his appearance, to enable him to pay the compensation within such period. In default of his appearance and nonpayment of the compensation, 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