IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/15TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRRP.No. 2694 of 2011 ( ) ..................... CRA.417/2009 of ADDL.S.C.- FAST TRACK (ADHOC) MAVELIKKARA CC.65/2009 of J.M.F.C.-II, CHENGANNUR ........................ REVISION PETITIONER(S)/REVN.PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED 1 RAJEEV. P. R., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. RAVEENDRAN PARAPPATTUKOCHUPATTERIL THITTAMEL CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI. N. ASHOK KUMAR COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE. 1 AJITH JOHN, S/O. JOHN DANIEL, PUNNON FINANCE BACHEL JUNCTION CHENGANNUR – 689 121. 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEENA R. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-12-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PN S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2694 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of December, 2011 O R D E R Revision is by the accused, who has been convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 {for short ‘the Act’} concurrently by two courts below. Sentence imposed against the accused as affirmed by the Sessions Judge in appeal is simple imprisonment for three months with direction to pay fine of Rs.3,65,000/- with default term of simple imprisonment for three month more. 2. The revision coming up for consideration today, after notice served on the 1st respondent/complainant, and he remaining absent, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that he has no arguments on merits to assail the conviction, but only against the sentence imposing Crl.R.P.No.2694 of 2011 :: 2 :: incarceration for a period of three months with a further request to be be made for grant of some more time to pay the fine and thus, to avoid the default term of imprisonment. 3. Cheque involved in the case is dated 21.03.2007 and the amount covered by that instrument is Rs.3,65,000/-. That amount alone has been directed to be paid as fine as part of the sentence, apart from imposing a punishment of simple imprisonment for three months. When that be so, prima facie, there is no merit in the request made for modification of the sentence and also further period of time for payment of fine. However, having regard to the nature of the offence arising from the dishonour of a cheque and taking note of the submissions made by the counsel, pointing out the extenuating circumstances in favour of the accused to seek modification of the sentence Crl.R.P.No.2694 of 2011 :: 3 :: and also to have further time, I find, the sentence imposed against the accused can be reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court, retaining the fine with the default term of imprisonment, providing a short time, as indicated hereunder for payment of such fine. 4. Affirming the conviction, the sentence imposed against the accused is reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court, retaining the fine with the default term of imprisonment. Petitioner/accused is directed to appear before the magistrate on 15.02.2012, to serve out the imprisonment till the rising of the court and to report the payment of fine. The magistrate shall keep in abeyance the execution of the sentence till the date fixed as above for his appearance, to enable him to pay the fine within such period. In default of Crl.R.P.No.2694 of 2011 :: 4 :: his appearance and non-payment of the fine, the magistrate shall execute the sentence taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. Revision is disposed of as above. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.