C N RAGHUVARAN Vs. M T ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision is filed by the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for short N.I.Act, concurrently by the two inferior courts below. When the revision came up for consideration, learned counsel for the accused submitted that he has no arguments to be advanced on merits, but only a request for extension of time to the compensation awarded, towards the cheque amount, and, thus, avoid the default aim of imprisonment.

(2.) Going through the judgments rendered by the two courts below, I find conviction of the accused for the aforesaid offence is supported by unimpeachable legal evidence. As far as the sentence imposed also the learned Sessions Judge has shown sufficient leniency in reducing the substantive term of imprisonment till the rising of the court retaining compensation, the cheque amount due, with default term of imprisonment. So the request made by the counsel for extension of time to pay off the compensation for six months has to be appreciated with reference to the date of issue of the cheque, the dishonour of which has given rise to the prosecution, ultimately the conviction of the accused. The cheque is dated 30.5.2007 and sum covered by that instrument is Rs.90,000/-. Such being the case, normally, further extension of time cannot be granted.

(3.) However, taking into account the submissions made by the counsel, the Magistrate concerned should keep in abeyance the execution of the sentence for a period of two months from today. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 4th October, 2011 to serve out the substantive term of imprisonment for one day till rising of the court and also report the payment of the compensation. In default of his appearance, and non payment of compensation, the Magistrate shall execute the sentence in accordance with law.