IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 19TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 443 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRA.233/2009 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), ALAPPUZHA CC.1317/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHERTHALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT IN CRL.APPEAL/ACCUSED IN S.T ----------------------------------------------------------- VILASINI BAI, W/O. THRIVIKRAMA SARMA, LAKSHMI NIVAS, THIRUMALA BHAGAM P.O, THURAVOOR, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.RAMANARAYANA PRABHU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN APPEAL/COMPLAINANT IN S.T AND STATE ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STAFORD BERKLINE.E.J, ESWAREDATHU VEEDU, PALLITHODU P.O,CHERTHALA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROCESUCTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. R2 BY P.P.SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.443 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of February, 2010 ORDER The revision petitioner, who is a lady faced a charge for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in a complaint at the instance of the first respondent, is now before this court, challenging her conviction and sentence. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is that she had borrowed a sum of Rs.80,000/- from the first respondent and towards the discharge of the said liability she issued a cheque dated 24.7.2006 drawn on Cherthala Branch of Vijaya Bank and when the said cheque presented for encashment the same was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. According to the respondent, after complying with the statutory requirement, the complaint was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Cherthala, whereupon the cognizance was taken and instituted C.C.No.1317/2006. During the trial, the 2 complainant was examined as PW1 and produced Exts.P1 to P6. There was no evidence from the side of the defence. On the basis of the evidence of the complainant and the materials on record, the trial court has found that the accused/revision petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged against her and accordingly she was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.80,000/-. In default of paying the fine amount, the accused is further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and order under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. was also issued that on realisation of the fine amount, the same shall be given to the complainant as compensation. 3. Aggrieved by the above order of the trial court the revision petitioner had preferred Crl.A.233/2009 and by judgment dated 20.10.2009 the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court -I, Alappuzha has disposed of the above appeal confirming the conviction. But the sentence of 3 imprisonment ordered by the trial court was set aside and the accused/revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.80,000/- and on default, the accused is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three moths. It was also ordered that on realisation of fine the same shall be given to the complainant as compensation. It is the above judgments are challenged in this revision petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner fairly submitted that the petitioner is ready to make the payment as ordered by the lower appellate court for which some time be granted in favour of the revision petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the revision petitioner who is now a teacher will retire from the service by the month of March, 2010 and therefore, the amount can be raised at the time of the retirement and from the said amount the compensation can be paid as directed by the courts below. 5. I have carefully considered the above submission. 4 Admittedly the cheque in question is dated 24.7.2006 and because of the non payment of the amount inspite of statutory notice, the complainant was constrained to approach the court by filing a complaint and the said case was disposed of by the trial court on 27.3.2009. Thereafter the accused preferred an appeal which was pending in the lower appellate court for more than seven months. After the disposal of the appeal on 20.10.2009 three months are over. Under the above circumstances, I am of the view that three months time as sought by the counsel cannot be granted. From the submission of the learned counsel it appears that the revision petitioner is likely to retire on 31.3.2010. Therefore, according to me two months' time can be granted which is sufficient to meet the end of justice. 6. In the result, this Crl.R.P. is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and also confirming the sentence and fine as ordered by the lower appellate court instead of the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the trial 5 court. The revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 8.4.2010 to make the payment of the fine amount as ordered by the court below. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the trial court on 8.4.2010 and making the fine amount, the trial court is free to initiate coercive steps for securing the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence of fine and to realize the fine amount to be paid as compensation to the complainant as ordered. If any coercive steps has already been taken, the same shall be kept in abeyance till 8.4.2010. V.K.Mohanan, Judge cms