IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2697 of 2011() ------------------------- CRA.353/2011 of SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ST.1076/2006 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-IV, NEDUMANGAD ................... REVISION PETITIONER : APPELLANT : ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ VIJAYAN.B, PUTHEN VILA VEEDU, ARASUPARAMBU, NEDUMANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS : COMPLAINANT & STATE : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. A.K.DINESHAN, THE PROPRIETOR, THRISSUR POORAM JEWELLERS, NEDUMANGAD, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, N.K.GIREESH, MANAGER, THRISSUR POORAM JEWELLERS, NEDUMANGAD 695 514. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE 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 14/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.2697 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of November 2011 ORDER The revision is by the accused convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, the Act), concurrently by the two inferior courts. Sentence imposed against the accused, as modified by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal, is imprisonment till the rising of the court with direction to pay fine of `.88,000/- with default term of simple imprisonment for three months. Fine amount, if realised, was directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has preferred this revision. 2. When the revision was taken up for consideration, 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 three months time to pay the fine amount and, thus, avoid the default term of imprisonment. During the pendency of the appeal before the Sessions Court, the learned counsel submits, a sum of `.10,000/- was paid towards the cheque amount of `.98,000/- and, hence, while disposing the Crl. R.P No.2697 OF 2011 2 appeal, fine has been refixed as `.88,000/-. The accused at present is facing severe financial difficulties and unless a breathing time is provided for payment, he has no other go, but, to suffer the default term of imprisonment, is the submission of the counsel. 3. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel and noticing that there is no challenge against the conviction, I find, no notice is required to the complainant, and it is dispensed with. 4. Cheque involved in the case is dated 10-02-2005. The dishonour of that instrument led to the prosecution and ultimately the conviction of the petitioner/accused. Part payment made on the amount covered by the cheque is only a megre sum of `.10,000/-. When that be the case, prima facie there is no merit in the request made for further extension of time to pay the fine. However, taking note of the submissions made by the counsel, I find, a short period, as indicated hereunder, can be provided to the accused to enable him to pay the fine amount. 5. Affirming the conviction and sentence, the accused is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 30-01-2012 to serve out the imprisonment till the rising of the court, and to report payment of the fine. The learned Magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance Crl. R.P No.2697 OF 2011 3 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 the fine, 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