IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2011 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2856 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- [CRL.A.NO.28/2009 OF THE ADDL.SESSIONS COURT-II, KOLLAM, ST.NO.68/2008 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, KARUNAGAPPALLY] .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------- ABDUL VAHAB, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.MAJEED KUNJU, PUTHENPURAYIL VEEDU, KOLLAKA P.O., VADAKKUMTHALA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.S.L.SYLAJA. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. ARUMUGHAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, PUTHUMANNEL VEEDU, CHERIAZHAKKAL P.O., ALAPPAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PIN - 680 001. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN - 682 031. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEENA.R. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.2856 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December 2011 ORDER The 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 him, as modified by the learned sessions Judge in appeal, is imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay fine of `.2,05,000/- with default term of simple imprisonment for four months. Fine amount, if realised, was directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant. 2. When the revision came up for consideration today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has no arguments on merits to assail the conviction and sentence, but, only a request to be made for grant of six months time to pay the fine and, thus, avoid the default term of imprisonment. Since there is no challenge against the conviction, for the purpose of examining the merit of the request made for further time to pay the fine, that alone, there is no need to issue notice to the complainant as any order granting time is within the discretion of the court. So much so, notice to the complainant is dispensed with. Cheque involved in the case is dated 28-06-2006. Crl. R.P No.2856 OF 2011 2 The dishonour of that instrument has given rise to the prosecution and ultimately the conviction of the accused. Despite modification of the sentence by the learned sessions Judge reducing the substantive term of imprisonment till the rising of the court retaining the fine with default term, no part of the fine amount fixed has been paid to the complainant till date by the accused, would prima facie indicate that there is no merit in the request made for further extension of time for payment of fine. However, taking into consideration the extenuating circumstances in favour of the accused canvassed by his counsel, I find, a short period, as indicated hereunder, can be provided to him to pay the fine within such period and, thus, avoid the default term of imprisonment. 3. Affirming the conviction and sentence, petitioner/accused is directed to appear before the magistrate on 02-03-2012 to serve out the imprisonment till the rising of the court, and to report payment of fine. Magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of sentence till the date fixed as above for his appearance, to enable him to pay the fine within such period. In default of his appearance and nonpayment of fine within the aforesaid period, the magistrate shall execute the sentence taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. Revision disposed of. vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE