IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2011 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 847 of 2011 ----------------------------------- CRA.790/2006 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, TRIVANDRUM ST.263/2005 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-X, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- LATHA C., STENOGRAPHER, PFC/ASSC, ISRO, P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT QUARTER NO. C-276, PALLITHURA, VELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER SMT.M.JAYASREE RESPONDENTS(S): RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. P.KRISHNA PILLAI, TC 40/1369, SIVASAKTHI, KNAR 151, 3RD PUTHEN STREET, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 847 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 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') approached this Court by preferring the above revision petition challenging her conviction and sentence, imposed as per the 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 three months time to pay the compensation amount. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the above submission of the learned counsel requires positive consideration, especially in the light of the fact that the petitioner is a lady. 3. It is pertinent to note that the cheque in question is dated 16.7.2004 for an amount of Rs.1,60,000/-. Though the courts below Crl.R.PNO.847 of 2011 :-2-: have concurrently found that the cheque in question is issued towards the discharge of the liability, so far no amount is paid to the complainant even after the judgment of the appellate court. Now, the petitioner seeks three months more time to pay the compensation amount. The Honourable Apex Court in the decision reported in Damodar.S.Prabhu v. Sayed 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. The petitioner herein is a lady, who is working as Stenographer in I.S.R.O. In the light of the facts and in view of the decision of the Apex Court and particularly, the petitioner being a lady, I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the appellate court requires reconsideration and at the same time, the interest of the complainant has also to be protected. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 Crl.R.PNO.847 of 2011 :-3-: 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 sentence is confined to fine only and the order to pay compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. is also set aside. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to pay fine of `.2,08,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eight Thousand only) within three months from today and in default, the revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of `.2,08,000/-in the trial court on or before 22nd June, 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 execute the sentence and for realisation of the fine amount. On realisation of the fine amount, a sum of `.2,00,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1) Crl.R.PNO.847 of 2011 :-4-: (b) of the Cr.P.C. and the remaining amount shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 22nd June,2011. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. MBS/