IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2011 / 26TH ASWINA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2419 of 2011() ------------------------------------ CRA.553/2009 of ADDL. SESSIONS AND DISTRICT COURT, FAST TRACK(ADHOC-II), KOZHIKODE ST.819/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV, KOZHIKODE .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------- GOPEEKRISHNAN.V.M,S/O.VARIJAKSHAN, (WRONGLY SHOWN AS ARAVINDAKSHAN)AGED 37 YEARS, M/S ELECTRO CENTER,K.D.C.BUILDING,KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH SRI.M.PRAMODH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------- 1. NISHA MURALI,AGED 37 YRS,W/O.M.K.MURALI, PROPRIETOR,M/S NEW MALIYEKKAL AGENCIES,P.T.USHA ROAD,CALICUT,REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR.RAMACHANDRAN,S/O.RAMAN NAIR,AGED 65 YEARS, MANOJ NIVAS,KARUVASSERY,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RAJESH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.2419 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of October 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 the accused, as modified by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal, is one of fine of `.85,000/- with default term of simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. Notice in the revision was ordered to the 1st respondent, but, after service, she has elected to remain absent. When the revision came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the revision 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 for payment of the fine. It is also submitted by the counsel that pursuant to orders passed by this court specifying the condition imposed for suspension of sentence, he has deposited a sum of `.30,000/- within the time fixed by this court, before the Magistrate Court. 3. Cheques involved in the case, two of them, dishonour of which giving rise to the prosecution and ultimately the conviction of the accused are seen issued in December 2006. When that be so, Crl.R.P No.2419 OF 2011 - 2 - prima facie, there is no merit in the request made for further extension of time to pay the fine. However, taking note of the submission made by the counsel that the accused who is a business man has lost all his business and is in severe financial difficulties, I find, some more time as indicated hereunder can be granted to pay the fine imposed and, thus, avoid the default term of imprisonment. 4. Affirming the conviction and sentence the revision petitioner/accused is granted time till 10-01-2012 to pay the fine imposed. If any deposit has been made by the accused towards the fine sit hall be given credit to. The Magistrate shall keep in abeyance the execution of sentence till the date fixed as above. In default of payment of fine within the date fixed as above, the learned Magistrate shall execute the sentence taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. Revision disposed of. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge