IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3682 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.252/2009 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT,-I, MAVELIKKARA CC.3/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHENGANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------- RAMADEVI, RESIDING AT NANDANAM VEEDU, MALAKKARA MURI, ARANMULA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SABINA JAYAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND STATE ----------------------------------------------- 1. D.MANIAMMA, RESIDING AT VADAKKEPADINJATTETHIL MULAKUZHA P.O., CHENGANNUR. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. SRI P.P JAYAKRISHNAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3682 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of November, 2009 ORDER The Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chengannur in C.C.No.3 of 2007 convicted the revision petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months. She was also ordered to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the first respondent who was the complainant. The revision petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.252 of 2009. When the appeal was presented there was a delay of 53 days. To condone the delay she preferred Criminal M.P.No.536 of 2009 with an explanation that she was suffering from bronchitis. The appellate court ordered notice. But no steps were taken. Neither there was any representation on various postings. In the above circumstance, the appellate court dismissed the petition to condone the delay. Consequently, the appeal was also dismissed by judgment dated 28/8/2009 as barred by limitation. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above judgment and order dismissing the petition to condone the delay, this revision Crl.R.P.No.3682 of 2009 2 petition was filed. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the judgments of the courts below and the order in Criminal M.P.No.536 of 2009. Though the appellate court dismissed the petition to condone the delay for sufficient reasons and the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation, I have gone through the merits of the case. The evidence of first respondent as PW.1 is convincing to find that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the first respondent and in discharge of the said liability, Ext.P1 cheque dated 11/11/2006 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Thiruvalla branch was issued and that when it was sent for collection through Indian Bank, Chengannur it was returned dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as evidenced by Exts.P2 and P3 memos. Despite the acknowledgment of the notice demanding discharge of the liability as evidenced by Ext.P6 the revision petitioner failed to discharge the liability. She has no good defence, other than total denial. She had not even sent a reply to the notice demanding discharge. There is no good reason to controvert the evidence of PW.1. Even if the appeal is entertained, there is no reason to interfere with the conviction. I find that the conviction Crl.R.P.No.3682 of 2009 3 is based upon cogent evidence. 3. Having due regard to the fact that the revision petitioner is a lady aged 49 years with no avocation, on gender consideration, I find that she is entitled to leniency in sentence and that a sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court with order to pay compensation as ordered by the trial court with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months would meet the ends of justice. 4. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the conviction under challenge, the substantive sentence is reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court. The revision petitioner shall pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the first respondent . In default of payment of compensation, the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The revision petitioner is granted six months time to pay the compensation. Till then, the bail bond executed by her shall remain in force. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj.