IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 13TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 564 of 2001() ----------------------------- CRA.104/1999 of SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA CC.245/1998 of JDUL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RAMANKARI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ JAYAMMA @ JAYA VARGHESE, VAISAKY PLASTICS, PONGASSERIL VELI, GURUPURAM, AVALOOKKUNNU, ALAPPUZHA BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. A.HABEEB, SHAHANAZ MANZIL, LAJANATH WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, TVM THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- Crl.R.P.564/2001 -------------------- Dated this the 4th day of September, 2008 ORDER The accused in C.C.No.245/1998 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ramankary, is the petitioner herein. She was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial Court found the accused guilty and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. The accused was also directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. The conviction and sentence were affirmed by the appellate Court and hence this revision. 2. The complainant alleged that the accused had borrowed an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- from the complainant on 11.6.1996 and on 10.12.1996, in discharge of the liability, issued Ext.P1 cheque. The cheque when presented for collection, was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Ext.P4 notice was sent to the Crl.R.P.564/2001 2 address of the accused, but it was returned with the endorsement “addressee left”. Ext.P5 is a copy of the said notice. Apparently to re-affirm his position, the complainant had send Ext.P7 telegram intimating despatch of the notice and had also send another copy of the notice to the address of the husband of the accused under Ext.P8 certificate of posting. 3. The only defence taken up by the accused as could be seen from the judgment of the Courts below is that there was no proper service of notice as such. The Courts below referred to the fact that the complainant, apart from testifying to the despatch of the notice to the address of the accused, had also examined PW3 the postman, functioning in the area where the accused was actually residing and within whose jurisdiction the address mentioned in Ext.P4 was situated. Postman was acquainted with the accused and had also affirmed that the address was correct. These aspects were taken note of by the Court below to find that there is proper service of notice. Same view has been affirmed by the appellate Court also. Crl.R.P.564/2001 3 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the complainant. I am satisfied with the findings of the Courts below that there has been adequate service of notice, in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act. The accused did not have a case that the address noted in Ext.P4 was not her correct address. PW3, the postman who was acquainted with the accused has correctly identified the same. Despatch of notice was again affirmed by Ext.P7 telegram and to re-affirm his position, the complainant had send a copy of the notice to the address of the husband of the accused under Ext.P8. Receipt of telegram was proved by Ext.P9. The contention that there was inadequate service of notice on the accused as such, was clearly untenable. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the accused is a lady and sentence of imprisonment, in the circumstances, coupled with a direction to pay compensation for the cheque amount, is excessive. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment can be reduced to one till the rising of the Court. But as rightly Crl.R.P.564/2001 4 pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant, it has been more than ten years since the criminal prosecution has been pending and the quantum of compensation should reflect the continued detriment caused to the complainant. 7. In the result, Crl.R.P is allowed in part by modifying the sentence imposed. The conviction of the accused under Section 138 of the Act is upheld. In modifying the sentence imposed by the Courts below, the accused is sentenced for imprisonment till the rising of the Court. The accused shall further pay a compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- to the complainant, within three months from today. Party shall appear before the Court below on 17.11.2008, for the accused to undergo the sentence of imprisonment. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs