IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2008 / 28TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 125 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRA.844/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKOE CC.453/2006 of SPECIAL J.F.C.M (MARAD CASES) KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REV. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------------------------------------- DEVESAN.A., S/O.KUTTIKRISHNAN, DEVA NIVAS, PALATH.P.O., KAKKODI VIA, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S.MALABAR CHIT FUNDS (PVT.) LTD., 2ND FLOOR, JAYANTHI BUILDINGS, PALAYAM ROAD, CALICUT, REP. BY M.RASHEED, S/O.ALIKOYA, PANAMKANDI HOUSE, PUTHIYANGADI, CALICUT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P.No.125 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of January, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I Act. After the appellate modification of the sentence, the petitioner now faces a sentence of imprisonment till rising of court. There is a further direction to pay the actual amount as compensation and in default to undergo S.I for a period of one month. The cheque is for an amount of Rs.2.2 lakhs. It bears the date 16.06.2004. 2. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that the complainant has succeeded in establishing all ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Accordingly they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments. 3. Called upon to explain the nature of challenge, which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not strain to assail the verdict of guilty and conviction on merits. The learned counsel only prays that a lenient view may be taken and the petitioner may be granted some further time to raise and Crl.R.P.No.125 of 2008 2 make the payment of the compensation amount and thus avoid the default sentence. 4. The cheque was issued on 16.6.04. Leniency to a fault has already been shown in the matter of sentence. The plight of the complainant cannot be ignored or overlooked by this Court. I do not, in these circumstances, find much merit in the prayer for any long further period of time to make the payment. However, I am satisfied that a short breathing time can be granted to the petitioner to make the payment and avoid the default sentence. 5. In the absence of any contention on merits, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail in this order. In the nature of the relief which I propose to grant, it is not necessary to wait for issue and return of notice to the respondent. 6. In the result, this Crl.R.P is dismissed, but with the observation/direction that the impugned sentence shall not be executed till 29.02.08. The petitioner shall have time to make the payment till then. The petitioner shall appear and his sureties shall produce him before the learned Magistrate on 01.03.08 for execution of the impugned sentence hereby imposed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- Crl.R.P.No.125 of 2008 3