The accused in ST.No.216/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Vaikom, is the revision petitioner herein. 2. The case was taken on file on the basis of a private complaint filed by the first respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The case of the complainant in the complaint was that, revision petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- and in discharge of that liability, he had issued the cheque which when presented was dishonoured for the reason 'funds insufficient', and in spite of notice issued, he had not paid the amount. So he had committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act.
2. When the revision petitioner appeared before the courts below and particulars of offence read over and explained to him and he earlier pleaded not guilty. Thereafter he filed an application for permitting him to plead guilty and that petition was allowed and thereafter the particulars of offence were again read over and he pleaded guilty and, that was treated as voluntary and the court below had accepted the plea of guilt and convicted him for the offence under Section 138 of the Act, and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court and also to pay the cheque amount of 2,40,000/- as compensation, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, under Section 357(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, that is being challenged by the revision petitioner by filing this revision.
3. Since the respondent had appeared before this court felt that the revision can be admitted and disposed of.
4. When this revision came up for hearing, the Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that he does not want to challenge the legality of the conviction or the sentence, but he wants only six months time for payment of the amount. This court also on going through the order of the court below, found that it does not suffer any illegality of the court below accepting the plea of guilty on a later occasion as that was approved by this court in one of the decisions. Further the sentence imposed also cannot be said to be excessive, so as to interfere invoking revisional power. The request for six months time considering the amount involved appears to be reasonable also. So the revision petitioner is granted time till 18.6.2015 to pay the amount, till then the execution of sentence is directed to be kept in abeyance.
With the above direction and observation the revision petition is dismissed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned courts immediately.
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE VS