IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2011 / 17TH POUSHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 43 of 2011() --------------------------------- CRA.37/2009 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.291/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ATTINGAL .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------------- J.J.LALITHA, W/O. K.KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, N.K. MANZIL, AVANAVANCHER, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.VINOD J.DEV SRI.PRAMOD J.DEV RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.S. RAJENDRAN NAIR, ALIAS K.S.R. NAIR, REJEEV BHAVAN, ALTHARAMMOODU, CHIRAYINKEEZHU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695304. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.43 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2011. O R D E R The accused in a prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I.Act') approached this Court by preferring the above revision petition challenging her conviction and sentence, imposed as per judgments of the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as counsel for the respondents. 3. As this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction recorded by the courts below, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the sentence imposed by the court below is highly unreasonable and exorbitant and therefore, some leniency may be shown towards the revision petitioner who is a lady and also submitted that the revision petitioner may be permitted to pay the amount directly to the complainant. I find no reason to decline the above request. The 2 Crl.R.P.No.43 of 2011 cheque in question is dated 1.9.2004 and hence the cheque amount was due to the complainant for the last 6 years. The Honourable Apex Court in the decision reported in Damodar.S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal.H. [JT 2010(4) SC 457] has held that in the case of dishonour of cheques, the compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspects. . 4. Considering the facts and circumstances involved in the case and in the light of the above decision, I am of the view that the substantive sentence imposed against the revision petitioner requires reconsideration and a breathing time can be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the compensation. But, the compensation amount can be fixed with slight enhancement considering the fact that the amount was due from 2004 onwards. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I.Act as recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, 3 Crl.R.P.No.43 of 2011 while confirming the sentence to undergo simple imprisonment and the direction to pay the compensation, the compensation amount is modified and accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to pay a sum of ` 2,60,000/- to the complainant as compensation u/s.357(3) of Cr.P.C. within 3 months from today and in case of default, she is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on or before 11.04.2011 to receive the sentence of imprisonment and to pay the compensation amount as fixed by this court. It is made clear that the revision petitioner is free to pay the revised compensation amount either directly to the complainant or by remitting the same in the trial court, whichever subject to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the trial court on or before 11.04.2011 to receive the sentence and to pay the compensation amount, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision 4 Crl.R.P.No.43 of 2011 petitioner and to execute the sentence. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the petitioner shall be deferred till 11.04.2011. Criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/