IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 19TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2863 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.165/2006 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-III), KASARAGODE CC.13/2005 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, KASARAGODE. .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT IN CRL.A.NO.165/2006/ ACCUSED IN C.C.13/2005. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ANSIA, AGED 31 YEARS, W/O. Y.K. ABDUL SAMAD, R/AT LATHEER MANZIL PROPRIETOR, THALACHIRA P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.V.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CRL.A.NO.165/2006- COMPLAINANT IN C.C.13/2005/RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CRL.A.NO.165/2006: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. K. MOHAMMED KUNHI, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. MOIDEENKUTTY, R/AT SUHARA MANZIL, KUNTIKANA P.O., NEERCHAL VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK & DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. RITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Cr.R.P.No.2863 of 2009. = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of September, 2009. O R D E R The revision petitioner is the accused in CC.No.13/2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Kasaragod. The first respondent prosecuted her alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with an allegation that in discharge of a liability amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- Ext.P1 cheque dated 25.12.2003 was issued and that when Ext.P1 was sent for collection, it was returned bounced with the endorsement 'insufficiency of funds' and that the demand to discharge the liability fell in deaf ears. 2. The learned Magistrate after due trial arrived a finding of guilty against the revision petitioner. Consequently the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for two months. She was directed to pay a sum of Rs.47,000/- as compensation to the first respondent. It is on a finding that during the pendency of the prosecution she had paid a sum of Rs.53,000/- to the first respondent. In appeal, the Cr.R.P.No.2863 of 2009. -: 2 :- Addl.Sessions Judge (Adhoc-III), Kasaragod confirmed the conviction and sentence. Now this revision petition assailing the legality, propriety and correctness of the above conviction and sentence. 3. Today when the revision petition came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that she is not assailing the conviction, but the sentence alone is assailed. According to the learned counsel, the revision petitioner is a middle aged lady and issued Ext.P1 cheque to discharge the liability of her husband and that major portion of the liability was discharged and that the simple imprisonment for a period of two months now awarded by the court below is not justified. I find some there is merit in the contention. Having due regard to the facts and circumstances, I find that imprisonment till rising of the court would meet the ends of justice. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. The substantive sentence is reduced to imprisonment till the rising of court. The order to pay compensation is sustained. The revision petitioner is granted six months time for payment of compensation on executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for Cr.R.P.No.2863 of 2009. -: 3 :- like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court within fifteen days. In default to pay compensation the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for four months. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. Kvs/-