IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2010 / 30TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3122 of 2010() ------------------------------------------ CRA.886/2008 of IIND ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE ST.503/2007 of THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOZHIKODE. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------- M.K.LALITHA, W/O.SHANMUGHAN, AGED 40 YEARS, TEACHER, GOVERNMENT V.H.S.SCHOOL, GOVERNMENT ARTS COLLEGE P.O., NEAR VATTAKINAR, MEENCHANDA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.FIROZ SMT.SHAJNA FIROZ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. P.M.FAIZAL RAHIMAN, S/O.MOOSA KOYA, AGED 38 YEARS, PEEYEM MANZIL, KOLATHARA P.O., CHERUVANNUR AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE- 680001. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.N.SUMANGALA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.3122 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2010. O R D E R The revision petitioner is the accused in a prosecution for an offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and she challenges her conviction and sentence in this revision petition. 2. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is a teacher by profession and she has no contention on merit but her grievance is against the substantial sentence imposed against her and she also require some time to pay the amount and to compensate the complainant. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the said request can be considered positively but subject to other relevant inputs in the case, including the fact that the cheque in question is dated 1.2.2007, that too for an amount of Rs.1 lakh and also in view of the settled legal position that 2 Crl. R.P.No.3122 of 2010 reported in Damodar S.Prabhu V. Sayed Babalal H. (JT 2010 (4) SC 457). In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction against the revision petitioner u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, in suppression of the substantial sentence of imprisonment ordered by the appellate court, the sentence is confined to fine only and accordingly the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,15,000/- within 3 months from today and in default she is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. Thus the revision petitioner is directed to deposit the above amount on or before 22.1.2011 in the trial court and if there is any default in depositing the fine amount within the above period, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence. If the fine amount is realised, a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation u/s.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and the 3 Crl. R.P.No.3122 of 2010 remaining amount shall be paid to the State Exchequer. The Coercive steps if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 22.1.2011. Criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/