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. 2570 of 2011() ------------------------------------------- CRA.837/2008 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, VADAKARA ST.2852/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, VADAKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------------------------------------------------- P.M. JAYALAKSHMI, W/O.P.M. SASI, PADINHARE MAMBALLY HOUSE, IYYAMKODE P.O., NADAPURAM, VATAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. K. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.K.K. RAMAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.ARJUN AMARAVATHI CHITS PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, K. LOHITHAKSHAN, S/O.NARAYANA KURUP, PODIKANDY HOUSE, ONCHIYAM P.O., CHOMBALA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 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: rs S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.2570 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, is fine of `.40,000/- with default term of simple imprisonment for one month. 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 three months time to pay the fine fixed and awarded, and, thus, avoid the default term of imprisonment. 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. In considering the request made for payment of fine fixed and awarded, it is seen, the cheque involved in the case is dated 18-06-2006 and the sum covered by that instrument is `.36,500/-. Time lag after the dishonour of that instrument, which gave rise to the prosecution and ultimately the conviction of the accused, cannot be ignored in examining the Crl.R.P No.2570 OF 2011 2 request for further time for payment of the fine. However, taking into account the submissions made by the counsel, pointing out the extenuating circumstances available in favour of the petitioner/accused, who is shown to be a lady, to seek for extension of time, I find, a short period as indicated hereunder can be granted. 5. Affirming the conviction and sentence, petitioner/accused is granted time till 19-12-2011 to pay the fine fixed. The learned Magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of sentence till the date fixed as above, to enable him to pay the fine within such period and, thus, avoid the default term of imprisonment. In default of payment of the fine 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