IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1424 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.247/2009 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-1), KOTTAYAM ST.653/2008 of JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE -V, KOTTAYAM. .................... REVN. PETITIONER: --------------------------- CHANDRIKA, W/O. VISWANATHAN, MADAVANTHOPPU, NEERKUNNAM, VANDANAM PO,ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.V.SUNIL KUMAR (PANACHAMOODU) RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. SREE GOKULAM CHIT & FINANCE COMPANY LTD CENTRAL OFFICE AT NO. 66, ARCOT ROAD KODAMPAKKAM,CHENNAI, ONE OF ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT PRAKKATTU BUILDINGS , IST FLOOR, CENTRAL JUNCTION KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER ATTORNEY HOLDER K.N.RAJESH PIN 600024. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ADV. SRI.K.S.BABU FOR R1 SMT.N.SUDHA FOR R1 R2 BY P.P. SMT. REKHA C. NAYAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 1424 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 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') is the revision petitioner and the challenge in this Revision Petition is against the conviction and sentence, imposed as per judgments of the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. 2. As this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be granted breathing time to pay the fine amount. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the said submission requires positive consideration. As per the findings of the courts below, which approved by this Court, the cheque amount is due to the complainant for the last 4 years. But it is relevant to note that the petitioner/accused is a lady and therefore, the sentence imposed against the petitioner can be confined to fine only and the sentence to undergo imprisonment can be set aside. The Honourable Apex Court in the decision reported in Damodar.S.Prabhu v. Sayed CRRP 1424/11 -2- 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. Therefore according to me, while fixing the amount, the interest of the complainant has also to be protected and a breathing time can be granted to pay the amount. 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, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the appellate court is set aside and the petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,20,000/- (Rs.two lakhs twenty thousand only) within three months from today, in default, she is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to deposit the above enhanced fine amount on or before 12th day of September, 2011. In case of any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in making the deposit of fine amount on or before the above date, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and to CRRP 1424/11 -3- execute the sentence. On realisation of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.2,17,500/- (Rs.Two lakhs seventeen thousand and five hundred only) shall be given to the complainant as compensation under section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C and the remaining amount of Rs.2500/- shall be deposited in the state ex chequer. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 12th September, 2011. V.K.MOHANAN Judge. KVM/-