IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH APRIL 2011 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1090 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.325/2007 of SPL. COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), THODUPUZHA ST.1007/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, NEDUMKANDOM .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: REVISION PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- TRINCY,W/O.GEORGE,AMABALAKKULAM VEEDU, ETTUMANOOR KARA,KOTTTAYAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL SRI.UNNI SEBASTIAN KAPPEN RESPONDENTS ---------------------- 1. K.N.MATHEW S/O.NINAN KARINATTU VEEDU,RAJAKKANDOM KARA, ANAKKARA VILLAGE, UMBANCHOLA TALUK 2. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM R2 BY P.P. SMT. REKHA C. NAYAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 1090 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of April, 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. As this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner being a lady, the sentence of imprisonment may be set aside and the petitioner may be further granted some time to compensate the complainant. 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. 3. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that the cheque in question is dated 20.1.2005 for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- Though the courts below found that the said amount is due to the complainant, so far no amount is seen paid to the Crl.R.PNO.1090 of 2011 :-2-: complainant and now the petitioner seeks further time. 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. Having regard to the facts and the above legal position, I am of the view that especially the petitioner being a lady, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the courts below requires reconsideration. 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 Rs.1,25,000/- within 45 days from today, and in default, she is further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 45 days. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to deposit the above fine amount in the trial court on or before 27th May, 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 Crl.R.PNO.1090 of 2011 :-3-: 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 Rs.1,22,500/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. and the remaining amount of Rs.2500/- shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 27th May,2011. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. kvm/-