IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2011 / 4TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1831 of 2011() ------------------------------------------- CRA.NO.314/2010 of ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THODUPUZHA ST.NO.603/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADIMALI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------------------------- ABDULRAHMAN, S/O.SAIDUMUHAMMED, AGED 52 YEARS, CHIRAKANDATHIL HOUSE, CAMPCO JUNCTION, ADIMALI, MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.DIVAKARAN SRI.VINUCHAND RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. C.V.THAMPI, AGED 51 YEARS, CHIRUPARAMBIL (H), MACHIPLAVUKARA, ADIMALI, MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK.PIN-685 508 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.1831 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of July 2011 ORDER The revision is by the accused convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, NI Act), concurrently, by the two inferior courts. When the revision came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner / accused submitted that no argument on merits is sought to be addressed, but, only a request for extension of three months time to pay the compensation and, thus, avoid the default term of imprisonment imposed. 2. Going through the judgments rendered by the courts below, I find, conviction of the revision petitioner has been founded on unimpeachable legal evidence. The cheque involved in the case giving raise to the prosecution of the revision petitioner/accused leading to his conviction is dated 16-12-2007. When that be so, there is no merit in seeking for extension of time, especially where the accused has suffered conviction concurrently by the two courts. Still, having regard to the submissions made by the counsel that the accused is a driver employed in K.S.R.T.C and at present he is facing a lot of financial difficulties, I direct the Magistrate concerned to Crl.R.P No.1831/2011 - 2 - keep in abeyance the execution of sentence for a period of six weeks from today to enable him to pay the compensation and thus to avoid the default term of imprisonment imposed. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 26-09-2011 to serve out the substantive term of imprisonment for one day, till the rising of the court, and also to report the payment of the compensation. In default of his appearance or nonpayment of the compensation, the Magistrate concerned shall take appropriate steps to execute the sentence in accordance with law. Revision is disposed of. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge