IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2011 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2544 of 2011() -------------------------------------------- CRA.NO.62/2007 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOLLAM CC.NO.17/2001 of MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE, PARAVUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------------------------- SURESH BABU, S/O.SREEDHARAN, DEVAMATHA HOUSE, NEGUMGOLAM CHERRY, PARAVUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR SMT.P.LISSY JOSE. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.NANU, MEENATTUVILA VEEDU, NEDUMGOLAM CHERRY, PARAVUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RAJAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.2544 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th 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 in appeal, is imprisonment till the rising of the court and payment of compensation of `.1,00,000/- with default term of simple imprisonment for three months. 2. 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 five months time to pay the compensation and, thus, avoid the default term of imprisonment. Since there is no challenge against the conviction and sentence, no dilation thereof with reference to the judgments rendered by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge is called for. So far as the request made by the counsel for grant of five months time to pay the compensation awarded, it is seen that the cheque involved in the case, the dishonour of which had given raise to the prosecution and ultimately the conviction of the accused, is dated 10-05-2000 and the sum covered by that instrument is `.85,000/-. Crl.R.P No.2544 OF 2011 2 No part of the cheque amount has been paid to the complainant till date by the accused. When that be so, prima facie, there is no merit in the request made for extension of further time to pay the compensation fixed and awarded by the courts below. However, taking into account the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused pointing out the extenuating circumstances available in favour of the accused, to seek for such indulgence from this court, I find, a short period as indicated hereunder can be granted. 3. Affirming the conviction and sentence, the accused is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 03-01-2012 to serve out the imprisonment till the rising of the court, and to report payment of the compensation. The learned 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 compensation within such period. In default of his appearance and nonpayment of the compensation, 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