IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2011 / 31ST JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1551 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRA.602/2009 OF 1ST ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CC.30/2009 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II,CHALAKUDY .................... REVISION PETITIONER / APPELLANT/ACCUSED : ----------------------------------------------------------------------- VALSALA, AGED 47 YEARS, D/O.KARIPATHRA KRISHNANKUTTY, KUVUVILLASSERY DESOM, KURUVILASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.FRANCO T.J. RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS / COMPLAINANT AND STATE : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.P.THOMAS, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.POTTEPARAMBIL PALI, THANISSERY DESOM, KAKKULISSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V.TEK CHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn V.K.MOHANAN,J ----------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1551 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of June, 2011 ORDER The accused in a prosecution for the offence Under Section 138 of the NI Act is the revision petitioner. The challenge is against her conviction and sentence for the said offence. 2. As this court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the sentence of imprisonment ordered against the revision petitioner is unreasonable and exorbitant and therefore a lenient view may be taken and the petitioner may be granted sufficient time to compensate the complainant. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in this case, I am of the view that the said submission requires positive consideration. 3. The cheque in question is dated 03.12.2007 and that too for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Even according to the petitioner, she stood as a guarantor for the transaction. If that be so, there is no scope for any challenge against the liability of the petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act as the other ingredients are already established. Having regard to the above facts and in the light of the recent decision of the Apex court in Damodar Crl.R.P.No.1551 of 2011 2 S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H (J.T.2010 (4) SC 457), wherein it has held that in a case of dishonour of cheques, compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspect. In the light of the above facts and the settled legal position, I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment ordered against the revision petitioner requires re-consideration and while granting some time to compensate the complainant, the interest of the complainant has also to be protected. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act as recorded by the courts below. The petitioner being a lady, the sentence of imprisonment is set aside and the sentence confined to fine only and thus she is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,15,000/- which shall be deposited within three months from today and in default she is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to deposit the above amount of fine in the trial court on or before 22.09.2011. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in complying with the above direction, the trial court is free to take steps to execute the sentence and for realisation of fine amount. On realisation of the Crl.R.P.No.1551 of 2011 3 fine amount, a sum of Rs.1,12,500/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C and the remaining amount of Rs.2,500/- shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. Coercive steps if any pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 22nd September, 2011. The Crl.R.P is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm/