IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 14TH BHADRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1878 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.709/2009 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KOZHIKODE STC.151/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, PERAMBRA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- M.K.RAJ MOHAN, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, MANNARKKANDY HOUSE, KARIYATHANKAVU POST, BALUSSERI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. V.K.SANKARAN, S/O. PAPPER, VIKAS HOUSE, KOKKALLUR POST, BALUSSERI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA C. NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: AMG S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.1878 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of September 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 inferior courts. Sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate on his conviction directing him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay an amount of `3,70,000/- as compensation with default term of simple imprisonment for one more year, was affirmed as such by the learned Sessions Judge, dismissing his appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has filed this revision. 2. Notice was given to the 1st respondent/complainant, but, after service, he has elected to remain absent. 3. When the revision came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused submitted that no arguments on merits to assail the conviction is sought to be addressed, but only against the sentence with a request to be made for three months time to pay the compensation to avoid the default term of imprisonment. Imprisonment for one year, imposed as substantive term may be modified, is the submission of the counsel. Crl.R.P No.1878 OF 2011 - 2 - 4. Going through the judgments rendered by the learned Magistrate and also the learned Sessions Judge, I find, no special circumstance warranting the incarceration of the accused for the prison term fixed, where the conviction had been entered under Section 138 of the NI Act. Sentence imposed requires modification, reducing it to imprisonment for a day, till the rising of the court, retaining the compensation with default term, that too reduced to simple imprisonment for three months. 5. So far as the further time requested for to pay the compensation, it is seen, the cheque involved in the case is dated 28-09-2007 and the amount involved is `3,70,000/-. When that be so, there is no merit in seeking for further extension of time. However, having regard to the submissions made by the counsel for the accused, some more time for payment as indicated hereunder can be granted. 6. Affirming the conviction of the accused, sentence is modified reducing it to imprisonment for a day, till the rising of the court, retaining the compensation of `3,70,000/- fixed, modifying the default term, reducing it to simple imprisonment for three months. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 14-11-2011 to serve out the substantive term of imprisonment for a day, till the Crl.R.P No.1878 OF 2011 - 3 - rising of the court, and to report payment of the fine. Till the date fixed as above for his appearance, the learned Magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of sentence. 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. vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE