IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2011 / 17TH POUSHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3990 of 2010() ------------------------------------ CRA.598/2006 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) I, KOLLAM CC.2291/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------ ANANDAVALLY AMMA, MANGALATHU (RETNA CHELLAM), VALLIKKEZHU NAGAR RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION, KUREEPUZHA CHERRY, KAVANAD P.O., KOLLAM-3, HAILING FROM KANNADOOR VEEDU, KANNIMEL CHERRY, KOLLAM-3. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.KAMALAMMA, THALIPANACKAL (SRUTHI), KANNIMEL CHERRY, KAVANAD P.O., KOLLAM-691 003. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C. NAYAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3990 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 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 judgments of the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as counsel for the respondents. 3. As this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction recorded by the courts below, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the sentence imposed by the court below is highly unreasonable and exorbitant and therefore, some leniency may be shown towards the revision petitioner who is a lady. I find no reason to decline the above request. The cheque in question is dated 19.5.2006. The Honourable Apex Court in the decision reported in 2 Crl.R.P.No.3990 of 2010 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. . 4. Considering the facts and circumstances involved in the case and in the light of the above decision, I am of the view that the substantive sentence imposed against the revision petitioner requires reconsideration. The interest of the complainant has also to be protected and some breathing time can be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the compensation. But, the compensation amount can be modified with slight enhancement considering the fact that the cheque in question pertained to the year 2006. 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 substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed by the court below is set aside and instead of that the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of ` 1,03,000/- within 45 days from today 3 Crl.R.P.No.3990 of 2010 and in case of default, she is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to deposit the fine amount on or before 21.02.2011 as fixed by this Court. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in depositing the fine amount on or before 21.02.2011, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence. On realisation of the fine amount, a sum of ` 1,00,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation u/s.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and the remaining amount shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the petitioner shall be deferred till 21.02.2011. Criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/