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. 2145 of 2011 ------------------------------------- CRA.90/2011 of SPL. COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), THODUPUZHA ST.51/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THODUPUZHA ...................................................................................... REVN. PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------------------- FLOY THOMAS,S/O.THOMAS, THURUTHIKARA HOUSE, THEKKUMBHAGAM PO, IDUKKI DISTRICT ,THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT & STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUNNY PAUL, S/O.PAULOSE, KODAKKATHANATHU HOUSE, THODUPUZHA TALUK IDUKKI DISTRICT - 683508. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SSRI.T.R.RAJESH. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.JAISON JOSEPH SRI.JOSE MATHEW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: STU S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.2145 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th 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 'the Act'), concurrently by the two courts below. Sentence imposed against the accused is imprisonment till the rising of the court with direction to pay the compensation of `2,40,000/- with default term of simple imprisonment for six months. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has preferred this revision. 2. Notice given, the 1st respondent/complainant has entered appearance. 3. Going through the judgments rendered by the learned magistrate and also the learned Sessions Judge, I find that the challenges raised by the accused have been considered on its merits by both the courts below and found them to be not worthy of any value. I do not find any infirmity in the conviction concurrently formed by the courts below. 4. At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioner requested for granting of some more time for payment of the compensation to avoid the default term of imprisonment. Taking Crl. R.P No.2145 OF 2011 2 note that the cheque involved in the case, the dishonour of which led to the prosecution of the accused and ultimately his conviction, is dated 10-11-2009, I think, a short period, as indicated hereunder, can be granted to the accused to pay the compensation. 5. Affirming the conviction and sentence the petitioner is directed to appear before the magistrate on 20-12-2011 to serve out the imprisonment till the rising of the court and to report the payment of compensation. The learned 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