IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 18TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 379 of 2011 --------------------------------------- [CRL.A.NO.617/2010 OF SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR, CC.NO.1053/2006 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, THRISSUR] .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------------- BABITHA P.S., AGED 34 YEARS, W/O.LAL, THALAKKATTIL HOUSE, NA\NDIKKARA P.O., NELLAYI, KOLATHUR,THRISSUR. BY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS.SRI.P.M.RAFIQ, SRI.V.C.SARATH. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RUGMINI @ JUBU GOPI, AGED 37 YEARS, AATTUVEPPIL HOUSE, PANAMKULAM, KARUVANNUR, THRISSUR – 680 711. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEK CHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/02/2011, ALONG WITH CRL.R.P. NO.380/2011 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. V.K.MOHANAN,J. ---------------------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.Nos. 379, 380, 381,382, 383, 384,385,386, 393 and 394 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of February,2011 O R D E R All the above revision petitions are preferred by the accused, who is one and the same person, in different cases in which she stands convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Though the contesting respondents are different persons, as the petitioner and the facts and circumstances involved in each case are same and identical and the question of law are also similar, these revision petitions are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 2. In all these cases except Crl.R.P.No.385 of 2011, the judgments impugned are of the same court i.e., the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur and the court of Sessions Judge, Thrissur. In Crl.R.P.No.385 of 2011, the trial court judgment is of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- III, Thrissur. The offences alleged are under Section 138 of the Crl.R.PNos.379 of 2011 and other connec.cases :-2-: N.I.Act, but the cheque in question involved in each case is with respect to different amounts. 3. The allegation in general in Crl.R.P.Nos.384,386,393 and 394 of 2011, is that the accused and her husband have conducted an institution, by name Liya Consultancy and the complainants in each of the cases were employees in the said institution. According to the allegation in the complaint, when the complainants joined in the institution, the accused demanded deposits in cash and the complainants were made believe that on their retirement from the institution, the amounts deposited by the complainants will be returned. It is also the case of the complainant in some cases that in addition to the deposit, the accused had borrowed certain amounts from the complainants and finally, on demand the accused issued the cheque in question in each case for a total amount due to the complainants. As indicated earlier, in each case, the amount covered by the disputed cheque varies from case to case. In each case, the complainants have adduced oral as Crl.R.PNos.379 of 2011 and other connec.cases :-3-: well as documentary evidence. In certain cases, the defence has also adduced evidence consisting of oral and documentary. But, in all these cases, the trial court has found that the revision petitioner/accused is guilty under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and accordingly, in Crl.R.P.Nos.379,380,381, 382,384,386,393 and 394, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and also directed her to pay compensation to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. and the compensation is fixed as an amount equal to the cheque amount and the default sentence is fixed as simple imprisonment for one month. 4. In Crl.R.P.Nos.379,383 and 385 of 2011, the revision petitioner had pleaded guilty. Accordingly, the court below sentenced the revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.379 of 2011, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and in Crl.R.P.No.383 of 2011, she is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and also directed the revision petitioner, in both cases, to pay the compensation amount Crl.R.PNos.379 of 2011 and other connec.cases :-4-: equivalent to the cheque amount to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. whereas in Crl.R.P.No.385 of 2011, the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thrissur sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and also directed the revision petitioner to pay compensation equal to an amount shown in the cheque in question therein, under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. and the default sentence is fixed as simple imprisonment for two months. 5. Against the above judgments of the trial court, the revision petitioner had preferred separate appeals before the Sessions Court, Thrissur and by separate judgments, the appellate court allowed the appeal only in part and thus, while confirming the conviction recorded by the trial court, the sentence is modified in each case and reduced the same into imprisonment till the rising of the court and in all cases, while confirming the direction to pay compensation, the default sentence is reduced and fixed as simple imprisonment for one Crl.R.PNos.379 of 2011 and other connec.cases :-5-: month and accordingly, in all cases, the revision petitioner was directed to appear before the trial court. In Crl.R.P.No.385 of 2011, while disposing of the appeal, the Sessions Court confined the sentence only to pay fine and default sentence was also fixed. It is against the above orders of conviction and sentence of the courts below, these Criminal Revision Petitions are preferred. 6. Going by the judgments of the courts below, it can be seen that no effective and substantial contentions are raised by the revision petitioner against the allegation of the complainants in each case. There is no serious challenge against the execution and issuance of the cheque in question in each case. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below and the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below. 7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is a lady and her husband has already absconded and therefore, she is not in a position to pay Crl.R.PNos.379 of 2011 and other connec.cases :-6-: the amount and therefore, a lenient view may be taken in the matter of default sentence. It is to be noted that in each case, though the trial court has imposed sentence of imprisonment, in appeal, the appellate court has reduced the substantial sentence into one day simple imprisonment. As the trial court as well as the appellate court have found that the cheque in question in each case was executed and issued by the revision petitioner towards the discharge of the liability, I find no reason to interfere with the default sentence, especially when the substantial sentence is only for one day as fixed by the appellate court. In this juncture, it is relevant to not that in view of Section 138 of the N.I.Act, the maximum sentence fixed is two years imprisonment and the fine can also be imposed to the tune of double the cheque amount. But, in the present case except one, the substantial sentence is only one day simple imprisonment and no fine is imposed and the revision petitioner is directed to pay compensation to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. and that too equal to an Crl.R.PNos.379 of 2011 and other connec.cases :-7-: amount shown in the cheque in each case. Therefore, it is not proper in interfering with the default sentence imposed by the court below while exercising the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, especially in the light of the particular facts and circumstances involved in the case. Accordingly, there is no merit in this Crl.R.Ps. and the same are dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. MBS/ Crl.R.PNos.379 of 2011 and other connec.cases :-8-: