IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2011 / 10TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1665 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.817/2009 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT-III, KOZHIKODE CC.213/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- SULOCHANA A.C., AGED 33 YEARS, W/O.UMESAN, AKKOTTUCHALIL HOUSE, KEEZHARIYOOR, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.RATNAKARAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- 1. SREE GOKULAM CHIT AND FINANCE CO. LTD., GOKULAM TOWERS, NO.66, ARCOT ROAD, CHENNAI, REP. BY ITS LEGAL CLERK SUDHEESH KUMAR P.K., S/O.P.K.KRISHNAN, AGED 33 YEARS, SREE GOKULAM CHITS, PKD C BUILDING, MAIN ROAD, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY P.P. SRI V. TEK CHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------------------ Crl.R.P. No.1665 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated the Ist Day of July, 2011 ORDER The challenge in this Crl.R.P is against the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner who is the accused in a prosecution for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. As this court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sentence imposed against the revision petitioner is unreasonable and exorbitant and therefore, the same may be set aside. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner requires some time to compensate the complainant. From the judgments of the lower courts, it appears that the cheque in question pertains to the year 2006. Thus, as per the findings of the courts below, the amount covered by the cheque is due to the complainant, but so far the said amount is not paid. It is relevant to note that the Apex Court, in its decision in Damodar S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H (J.T.2010 (4) SC 457), has held that in a case of dishonour of cheques, CRRP 1665/11 2 compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspect. Therefore, in the light of the above settled position and the facts stated above, I am of th view that the sentence imposed against the petitioner requires reconsideration, especially, considering the fact that the petitioner is a lady. While granting time to compensate the complainant, the interest of the complainant is also to be protected. 3. In the result, this Crl.R.P. is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under section 138 of the NI Act as recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the trial court and modified by the appellate court is set aside and accordingly, the petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.34,455/-, (Rs.thirty four thousand four hundred and fifty five only) within 45 days from today and in default, she is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Accordingly the petitioner is directed to deposit the fine amount in the trial court on or before 16th day of August, 2011. If there is any default on the part of the CRRP 1665/11 3 petitioner in depositing the fine amount in the trial court as directed above, the trial court is free to take coercive steps against the revision petitioner to secure her presence and to execute the sentence and for realisation of the fine amount. On reaslisation of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.32,000/ (Rs.Thirty two thousand only) shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C and the remaining amount of Rs.2455/- shall be deposited in the State ex chequer. Coercive steps if any pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 16th August, 2011. This Crl.R.P is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. kvm/-