ORDER : The petitioner is the accused for offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in S.T.No.3159/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Chavakkad, which was instituted on the basis of the complaint of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner pleaded guilty before the trial court and thereupon, the trial court rendered Anx. A judgment on 12.8.2016 in S.T.No.3159/2014 finding the petitioner accused guilty of the offence under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act and he was convicted thereunder. Further the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay compensation of rupees two lakhs to the complainant under Sec. 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. The petitioner was granted 4 months time to make the payment of the compensation amount of Rs.2 lakhs. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that due to extreme financial difficulties, he could not raise the total amount of Rs.2 lakhs so as to pay the compensation to the complainant within the time limit of 4 months stipulated in Anx. A judgment dated 12.8.2016. It is stated that the petitioner could raise an amount of Rs.1 lakh and that he could not pay the balance amount of Rs.1 lakh within the extended time limit prescribed by the court and that the 2nd respondent complainant is agreeable to this course of action. In the light of these aspects, the petitioner has filed the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Case by invocation of the remedy under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. with the following prayers: "1. Set aside the Judgment dated 12.8.2016 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad in S.T.No. 3159/2014. 2. Extend the time granted by the Learned J.F.C.M. Court, Chavakkad in Annx. A order till 31.3.2017. 3. Grand such other relief deemed fit to this Hon'ble Court." 3. While admitting the case, this Court had passed an order on 3.1.2017 directing that the plea of the petitioner could be considered in the light of the order dated 25.6.2014 passed by this Court in a similar case as in Crl.M.C.No.2911/2014, etc. Accordingly, this Court had passed another order dated 3.1.2017 in this Crl. While admitting the case, this Court had passed an order on 3.1.2017 directing that the plea of the petitioner could be considered in the light of the order dated 25.6.2014 passed by this Court in a similar case as in Crl.M.C.No.2911/2014, etc. Accordingly, this Court had passed another order dated 3.1.2017 in this Crl. M.C. which reads as follows: "Taking into account the order dated 25.6.2014 passed by this Court in Crl.M.C.No.2911/2014, it is ordered in the interest of justice that all coercive steps taken in pursuance of the impugned Anx. A order including warrant of arrest, if any, issued will remain under suspension for a period of 2 months on condition that the petitioner shall pay directly to the complainant an amount of Rs.1 lakh, within a period of 5 days from today and shall produce the original of the receipt issued in that regard by the complainant, before the court below and a photocopy of the said receipt should also be made available before this Court through a memo of the petitioner's counsel. The petitioner's counsel further undertake that the balance amount of Rs.1 lakh will be directly paid to the complainant without any further delay." 4. Notice to R-2 has been duly served. But R-2 has not entered appearance. In compliance with this Court's order dated 3.1.2017 on Crl.M.A.No.47/2017 rendered in this Crl.M.C., the petitioner has produced receipt dated 7.1.2017 evidencing payment of the amount of Rs.1 lakh, issued by the 2nd respondent complainant on 7.1.2017. The petitioner further submits that he would pay the balance amount of Rs.1 lakh to the 2nd respondent complainant within a period of 3 months from today. 5. The Division Bench of this Court in the case Sreedharan v. Bharathan, reported in 2014 (1) KLT 236 (D.B) has held that manifold situations may arise in matters involving cases under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where due to pressing reasons beyond the control of the accused, he may not be able to make payment on the stipulated day and may be willinng to make the payment to the complainant within the extended time sought for and the complainant may be willing to receive such payment. In such cases, it was held by the Division Bench that granting extension of time by the High Court will be securing the ends of justice by giving relief to the litigating parties and by facilitating full and final settlement of all the issues between them and granting such extension of time will not have the effect of reviewing the sub-stantitive decision in the matter of confirmation of the conviction and imposion of the sentence of fine, etc. 6. In the light of these aspects, this Court is of the view that this Crl.M.C. could be entertained for the limited purpose of granting extension of time. Though the 2nd respondent has been duly served, he has not chosen enter appearance before this Court. However, receipt dated 7.1.2017 said to have been issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner evidencing payment of Rs.1 lakh to the complainant within the time granted by this Court, has been produced by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is inclined to infer that the 2nd respondent is also willing for granting extension of time. The 3 months sought by the petitioner is too large and cannot be granted. However, in the interest of justice it is ordered that the petitioner is given 2 months from 1.2.2017 to make the payment of the balance amount of Rs.1 lakh to the complainant. After making such payment, the petitioner will appear before the trial court at 11 a.m. on 12.4.2017 to receive the sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court to satisfy the court about the payment of the total compensation of Rs.2 lakhs. Until 12.4.2017, further coercive steps that may be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned sentence will stand deferred. Needless to say, in default to pay the said compensation amount, he will have to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months as ordered by the trial court. With these observations and directions, the afore-captioned Crl.M.C. stands finally disposed of.