IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3589 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.132/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA ST.96/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER : REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- M.S.ANIL, MALAYIL PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, MUNDANMUDI P.O., VANNAPURAM, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SREE GOKULAM CHIT AND FINANCE CO.PVT. LTD, 356, ARCOT ROAD, KODAMBAKAM, CHENNAI, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, A.V.SANTHOSH, S/O.VIGAYABHANU, ASST., BUSINESS MANAGER, THODUPUZHA BRANCH. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P No.3589 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2009 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. The petitioner now faces a sentence of imprisonment till rising of court and to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo s.i for a period of two months. 2. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent verdict of guilty and conviction and the modified sentence imposed by the appellate court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall be satisfied if this Court grants the petitioner two months' further time to make the payment. The entire amount shall be paid if two months' time is granted. The two months' time may be granted so that the petitioner can raise the requisite amount and avoid the default sentence, urges the learned counsel for the petitioner. Crl.R.P No.3589 of 2009 2 3. I am satisfied that the verdict of guilty, conviction and the modified sentence imposed are all eminently justified and the same do not warrant interference at the instance of the revision petitioner/accused. However, I am satisfied that further time can be given to the revision petitioner to raise and deposit the amount before the court below or pay the amount to the complainant and thus avoid the default sentence. 4. The respondent though served, there is no representation. 5. In the result: a) This Crl.R.P is allowed in part; b) The impugned verdict of guilty, conviction and the modified sentence are upheld. But it is directed that the revision petitioner shall have time till 31.12.2009 to deposit the fine amount before the court below or to pay the said amount to the complainant and satisfy the learned Magistrate that the amount has thus been paid to the complainant. c) The impugned sentence shall not be executed till 31.12.09. On or before that date, the revision petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate for execution of the impugned sentence. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- Crl.R.P No.3589 of 2009 3