IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 780 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRA.286/2009 of ADDL.dist & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-1, PATHANAMTHITTA ST.2179/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------- SOBHANA KUMARI K., AGED 47 YEARS, W/O. REGHUNATHAN PILLAI, MANALUMUNDAKATHIL HOUSE, ALAMTHURUTHU P.O., PERINGARA, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. M.D.BIJU KUMAR, S/O. DAMODARA PANICKER, MANNOOR HOUSE, VENGAL, ALUMTHURUTHI MURI, PERINGARA, THIRUVALLA. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI SABU SREEDHARAN ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------------------ Crl.R.P. No.780 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated the 22nd Day of March, 2011 ORDER The challenge in this Crl.R.P. is against the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner who is the accused in a prosecution for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. As this court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence, the learned counsel submitted that the sentence of imprisonment ordered against the revision petitioner is unreasonable and exorbitant, especially considering the fact that the revision petitioner is a lady. It is the further submission that, if this court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction, the petitioner may be granted sufficient time to compensate the complainant. I find CRRP 780/11 2 some force in the above submission. 3. It is relevant to note that the cheque in question is dated 6.10.2006, that too, for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.one lakh only). The courts below have concurrently found that the cheque in question is issued towards the discharge of th liability due to the complainant. Still then no amount is seen paid. The Apex Court, in its recent decision in Damodar S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H (J.T.2010 (4) SC 457), has held that in a case of dishonour of cheques, compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspect. Considering the above decision of the Apex court and in the light of the facts indicated above and considering the fact that the revision petitioner is a lady, I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment requires reconsideration. At the same time, considering the facts pointed out earlier, the CRRP 780/11 3 interest of the complainant is also to be protected. In the present case, the complainant is a relative of the revision petitioner as well as her husband. 4. In the result, this Crl.R.P is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under section 138 of the N.I.Act recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, considering the fact that the petitioner is a lady, 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.1,20,000/- (Rs.one lakh twenty thousand only) within three months from today, in default, she is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed deposit the above fine amount on or before 22 nd June, 2011. If there is any default on the part of CRRP 780/11 4 the petitioner in depositing the fine amount as directed above, the trial court is free to take coercive steps against the revision petitioner to secure her presence and to execute the sentence and for realisation of the fine amount. On reaslisation of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.1,17,500/-(Rs.one lakh seventeen thousand five hundred only) shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under section 357(1 (b) Cr.P.C and the remaining amount of Rs.2500/- shall be deposited in the State ex chequer. Coercive steps if any pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 22.6.2011. This Crl.R.P is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. kvm/- CRRP 780/11 5 kvm/-