IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2583 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.8/2010 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-2), THRISSUR CC.447/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRTE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------ V.J.RAPHEL, S/O.V.V.JACOB, VAZHAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARATHAKKARA P.O., HRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S)RESPONDENTS/STATE OF KERALA, COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. TH STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM 31. 2. K.K.LONAPPAN, S/O.KUNJUVAREED, KAPPANI HOUSE, PANAMKUTTICHIRA, OLLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680001. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEENA R THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.2583 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November 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 courts below. 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 compensation of `.2,40,000/-, with default term of simple imprisonment for three months. 2. When the revision came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submittd that he has no arguments on merits to assail the conviction and sentence, but, only a request to be made for grant of two months time to pay the compensation fixed and, thus, avoid the default term of imprisonment. 3. Going through the judgments rendered by the learned magistrate and also the learned sessions Judge, I find, the conviction of the accused is based on unimpeachable legal evidence. No dilation over the conviction and sentence is called for since there is no challenge thereto. 4. So far as the request made for grant of two months time to pay the compensation, it is seen, the cheque for a sum of Crl. R.P No.2583 OF 2011 2 `.2,40,000/-, which on its dishonour gave rise to the prosecution and ultimately the conviction of the accused, was dated 07-06-2006. No amount covered by the cheque, despite the orders passed by the two courts below providing compensation in lieu of such amount, to the complainant, has been paid so far. When that be so, prima facie, there is no merit in the request made for grant of further extension of time to pay the compensation. However, having regard to the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner/accused, pointing out that the accused is presently facing severe financial difficulties, I find, a short period as indicated hereunder can be extended to pay the compensation. 5. Affirming the conviction and sentence, the accused is directed to appear before the magistrate on 19-12-2011 to serve out the imprisonment till the rising of the court, and to report payment of the compensation. The magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of sentence till the date fixed as above for his appearance, to enable him to pay the compensation within such period. 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. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge