IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2011 / 4TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 212 of 2011() ---------------------------------- CRA.15/2010 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT,-I, MAVELIKKARA ST.489/2007 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - I, MAVELIKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------ PUSHPA ANILKUMAR,W/O.ANILKUMAR, MAROOR HOUSE, KOCHUMURI,KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, BY ADVS. SRI.M.T.SURESH KUMAR SRI.V.V.RAJA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. S.SANTHOSH, S/O.SREEDHARAN, GOPASADANAM, PALLICKAL PO, KATTANAM - 688 001. 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 24/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl. R.P. No.212 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th 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 and sentence recorded by the courts below, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that some breathing time may be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the compensation amount. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that, sufficient time can be granted to the revision petitioner to compensate the complainant but at the same time, the interest of the Crl. R.P. No.212/2011 2 complainant has also to be protected, especially in the light of the decision reported in Damodar S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal .H. (JT 2010 (4) SC 457), wherein it is held that, in case of dishonour of cheques, the compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspects. More over the petitioner is a lady. Therefore, according to me the sentence can be confined to fine only instead of imprisonment. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner as recorded by the court below. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the courts below is set aside and the sentence is confined to fine only. Thus the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of `.90,160/-(Rupees Ninety thousand one hundred and sixty only), within three months from today and in case of any default in paying the fine amount, within the above period, the revision petitioner is directed to Crl. R.P. No.212/2011 3 undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to deposit the fine amount on or before 25.04.2011, and if there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in depositing the 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 realization of the fine amount, a sum of `.88,000/-(Rupees Eighty eight thousand only) shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and the remaining amount shall be deposited in the State exchequer. The coercive steps if any pending against the petitioner shall be deferred till 25.04.2011. Revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (V.K.MOHANAN), Judge ss/. //True Copy// P.A to Judge