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. 1901 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.209/2008 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.505/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- GANESH NAMBOOTHIRI, S/O.E.L.KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI, VADAKKE MARANGOTTU ILLAM, KUTTAMPEROOR, MANNAR, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.P.S.PRADEEP SRI.BALAKRISHNA KUNHIKRISHNA NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS --------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. JAYA MOHAN, W/O.MOHAN, 'SUNITHA NIVAS', ASRAMAM, KOLLAM-2. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.1901 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. On conviction, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of `.1,40,000/- with default term of simple imprisonment for three months more, by the learned Magistrate and it has been affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, without modification, in the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has filed this revision. 2. Notice was ordered to the second respondent/complainant, but, after service, he has elected to remain absent. 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 imposing substantive term of imprisonment and also a request to be made for some more time to pay the fine. 3. Going through the judgments rendered by the learned Magistrate and also the learned Sessions Judge, I find, no special circumstance presented in the case to impose a substantive term of imprisonment for three months. Sentence imposed thereof can be Crl.R.P No.1901 OF 2011 - 2 - reduced to imprisonment for a day, till the rising of the court, retaining the compensation with default term, that too reduced to simple imprisonment for two months. 4. Cheque involved in the case is dated 13-07-2007 and so much so, there is no merit in the request made for further extension of time to pay the fine. However, having regard to the submissions made by the counsel for the accused, time as indicated hereunder can be granted to pay the fine to avoid the default term of imprisonment. 5. Affirming the conviction, sentence imposed against the accused is modified reducing it to imprisonment for a day, till the rising of the court, retaining the fine of `.1,40,000/- with default term reduced to simple imprisonment for two months. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 01-11-2011 to serve out the substantive term of imprisonment for a day, till the 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 fine the Magistrate shall execute the sentence taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. Revision is disposed of. vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE