IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2097 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.193/2009 of IInd ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE FOR NDPS ACT CASES, THODUPUZHA ST.94/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED :- -------------------------------------------------------------------- SMT.ANJALI SONY, PARAKKATTU HOUSE, UPPUTHARA.P.O., KATTAPPANA. BY ADV. SRI.T.J.MICHAEL SRI.JOSE MATHEW (KAVALAKALAM) RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT :- ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SREE GOKULAM CHITS & FINANCE CO.LTD., 356, ARCOT ROAD, KODAMBAKKOM, CHENNAI-24, REP.BY P.O.A.HOLDER SRI.A.V.SANTHOSH, S/O.VIJAYABHANU, ASST.BUSINESS MANAGER, SREE GOKULAM CHITS & FINANCE CO.LTD., THODUPUZHA BRANCH-685 584. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.M.R.VENUGOPAL THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Crl.R.P.No.2097 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 15th day of July 2010 O R D E R The accused in a prosecution for an offence u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is the revision petitioner, as she is aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below. 2. The case of the complainant is that the husband of the accused was a subscriber in the chitty conducted by the complainant company. The chitty prize amount was Rs.75,000/- and the chitty was prized in favour of him and towards the discharge of the liability due to the company out of the chitty transaction, the accused, being the guarantor in the said transaction, issued a cheque dated 3.1.2008 for an amount of Rs.79,710/-, which when presented for encashment dishonoured for want of Crl.R.P.No.2097 of 2010 -: 2 :- sufficient fund in the account maintained by the accused and the cheque amount was not repaid in spite of a formal demand notice and thus the revision petitioner has committed the offence punishable u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. With the said allegation, the complainant approached the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Thodupuzha by filing a formal complaint, upon which cognizance was taken u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and instituted S.T.No.94/2008. During the course of the trial, Pws.1 & 2 were examined and produced Exts.P1 to P10 documentary evidences from the side of the complainant. No evidence either oral or documentary adduced from the side of the defence. On the basis of the available materials and evidence on record, the trial court has found that the cheque in question was issued by the revision petitioner/accused for the purpose of discharging her debt due to the complainant. Thus accordingly the court held that, the complainant has established the case against Crl.R.P.No.2097 of 2010 -: 3 :- the accused/revision petitioner and consequently found that the accused is guilty and thus convicted her u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On such conviction, the trial court sentenced the revision petitioner/accused to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay compensation of Rs.82,000/- to the complainant under Sec.357(3) of Cr.P.C. and the default sentence is fixed as 3 months simple imprisonment. 3. Though an appeal was filed by the accused/revision petitioner challenging the above conviction and sentence, by judgment dated 27.2.2010 in Crl.A.No.193/2009, the court of IInd Addl.Sessions Judge/Special Judge for NDPS Act cases, Thodupuzha allowed the appeal only in part and thus, while confirming the conviction and sentence ordered by the trial court, the appellate court modified the compensation and reduced the amount equal to the cheque amount ie; Rs.79,10/- and the default sentence is fixed as 3 months. It is the above orders Crl.R.P.No.2097 of 2010 -: 4 :- are challenged in this revision petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also perused the judgments of the courts below. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that a breathing time may be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the compensation amount and also allow her to pay the compensation amount directly to the complainant. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the said submission can be considered favourably In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction as recorded by the courts below against the revision petitioner under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act and while confirming the sentence of imprisonment and order of compensation as ordered by the lower appellate court, the revision petitioner is granted 3 months time to Crl.R.P.No.2097 of 2010 -: 5 :- pay the compensation and she is free to pay the 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. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 15th October, 2010 to receive the sentence and to pay the compensation amount. In case any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the trial court as ordered above and in making the deposit of compensation amount, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence awarded against the revision petitioner. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. Jvt Crl.R.P.No.2097 of 2010 -: 6 :-