IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 935 of 2002() ----------------------------- CRA.95/2000 of SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.1048/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ---------------------- SAROJINI AMMA, D/O. GOVINDA PILLAI, EDAYILAZHIKATHU VEEDU, PADINJTTUMKARA MURI KOTTARAKKARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.ASWAS RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. MUHAMED ALI, S/O. PAREEDU, ERUPARATHUNDIL VEEDU, THAZHUTHALA MURI, ADICHANALLOOR VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER,J ========================= Crl.R.P.No.935 of 2002 ========================== Dated this the 8th day of April, 2008 ORDER Petitioner was tried for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court found petitioner guilty and accordingly she was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The said order of conviction and sentence was confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Court. 2. The case of the complainant before the trial court was that the accused, who was his friend, had taken a loan of Rs.70,000/- from him and issued Ext.P1 cheque dated February 22, 1997 in discharge of the said debt. But when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. The statutory demand notice issued by the complainant did not evoke any response. Hence the complaint. 3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and his witness was examined as PW2. Exts.P1 to P1(a) were also marked on his side. There was no oral or documentary evidence C.R.R.P.No.935/2002 2 on the side of the accused. 4. The defence set up by the accused was that she happened to issue Ext.P1 cheque in connection with purchase of a vehicle. She further contended that she owed much lesser amount to the complainant than that was claimed under the cheque. Any how as rightly noticed by the court below the accused had totally failed to substantiate any of her contention. More importantly, she had admitted her signature in Ext.P1 cheque. The courts below had also noticed that the presumption available under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act was also available in favour of the complainant. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the materials available on record, I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent order of conviction passed against the petitioner. But in the peculiar facts and circumstances, particularly for the reason that the petitioner is a lady, I am inclined to accede to the plea made by the learned counsel to show some leniency in the matter of sentence. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is prepared to pay off the entire debt if some reasonable time is given to her. C.R.R.P.No.935/2002 3 Therefore, while confirming the order of conviction, petitioner is given an opportunity to discharge the debt. In modification of the sentence imposed on the petitioner, she is directed to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Petitioner shall appear before the court below on August 12, 2008 and remit the above sum of Rs.75,000/-. If the petitioner appears and remits the above sum, the learned Magistrate shall ensure that she undergoes imprisonment till raising of the court on that day. If the petitioner fails to appear and remit the compensation, the order of sentence imposed on her by the Appellate Court shall stand confirmed. The amount if any deposited by the petitioner shall be given credit. The criminal revision petition is disposed of as above. A.K.BASHEER,JUDGE dvs