IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 46 of 2004(A) ----------------------------- CRA.188/2002 of III ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THRISSUR ST.3153/1998 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED. ------------------------------------ BABY, W/O.THACHAN BALAN, THIRUVATHRA DESOM, MANATHALA AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.TONY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE, ----------------------------------- 1. T.J.PAULY, S/O.JOSE, THATTIL HOUSE, ANTHIKKAD P.O. THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.46 OF 2004 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2008 O R D E R The accused revision petitioner stands convicted for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay compensation for Rs.40,000/-. The allegation against her is that she borrowed an amount of Rs.40,000/- from PW1 and issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 19.12.1997 and failed to discharge the said debt on being notified of the presentation and dishonour of the cheque. She attempted to build up a case that PW1 and one Sebastian have colluded and misused a blank cheque issued by the accused to Sebastian and has thus caused the institution of the complaint from which this revision arises. She gave evidence as DW1 and deposed that Ext.D2 suit was filed by her against the complainant and Sebastian for return of such cheque. Crl.R.P.46/04 Page numbers 2. The courts below found that the aforesaid Ext.D2 suit stood dismissed for default without any further attempt to restore it and also that the said suit was filed after the institution of the complaint. That apart, her version did not inspire confidence in the minds of the courts below and the version of the complainant as PW1 has been accepted and acted upon. Having regard to the materials on record, I do not find any infirmity, irregularity or illegality in the findings of the courts below and the impugned order of conviction cannot be found to be wrong. 3. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the accused canvassed that as of now, the accused lady is around 60 years of age and a lenient view may be taken regarding sentence. 4. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, I deem it appropriate that to modify the sentence. In the result, (i) the order of conviction is confirmed. Crl.R.P.46/04 Page numbers (ii) The sentence is modified directing that the accused shall suffer imprisonment till the rising of the court for a day and also pay fine of Rs.40,000/-, in default of which, she will undergo simple imprisonment for 20 days. The accused is directed to appear before the court below on 27.8.2008 to suffer the sentence. The fine, if paid, shall be released to the complainant as compensation. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.15/7.