IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 11TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2314 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.9/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD CC.350/2008 of J.F.C.M.II, (ADDL.MUN SIFF), KASARAGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- PRAMEELA.V.V,AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.PRAKASHAN.M,TEACHER,G.W.L.P.SCHOOL, KUTANGEERADKA,KOIPADY VILLAGE,KASARAGOD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------ 1. KARUNAKARA BHANDARY,AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.LATE MAHALINGA BHANDARY,POOJA HOUSE,MULINJA VILLAGE AND UPPALA POST,KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT,PIN-671322. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P.SMT.SUMANGALA P.N. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Crl.R.P.No.2314 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 2nd day of September 2010 O R D E R The accused in a prosecution for an offence u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is the revision petitioner, as she is aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below. 2. The case of the complainant is that, towards the discharge of a debt due to the complainant, revision petitioner/accused issued a cheque dated 25.1.2008 for an amount of Rs.1,75,000/-, which when presented for encashment dishonoured, as there was no sufficient fund in the account maintained by the accused and the cheque amount was not repaid inspite of a formal demand notice and thus the revision petitioner has committed the offence Crl.R.P.No.2314 of 2010 -: 2 :- punishable u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. With the said allegation, the complainant approached the Judl. First Class Magistrate-I, Kasaragod, by filing a formal complaint, upon which cognizance was taken u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and instituted C.C.No.247/2008 and subsequently the case was made over to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II (Additional Munsiff), Kasaragod, wherein the case is re-numbered as C.C.No.350/2008. During the trial of the case, the complainant herself was examined as PW1 and produced Exts.P1 to P4 documentary evidences. No evidence either oral or documentary from the side of the defence. On the basis of the available materials and evidence on record, the trial court has found that the cheque in question was issued by the revision petitioner/accused for the purpose of discharging her debt due to the complainant. Thus accordingly the court held that, the complainant has established the case against the accused/revision petitioner and consequently found that the accused is guilty and thus Crl.R.P.No.2314 of 2010 -: 3 :- convicted her u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On such conviction, the trial court sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and she is also directed to pay Rs.1,75,000/- as compensation to the complainant u/s.357(3) of Cr.P.C. and the default sentence is fixed as one month simple imprisonment. 3. Though an appeal was filed at the instance of the revision petitioner, by judgment dated 24.3.2010 in Crl.A.9/2009, the Court of Sessions Judge, Kasaragod allowed the appeal only in part and thus, while confirming the conviction, the sentence is modified and reduced to one day simple imprisonment ie; till the rising of the court. The compensation is also confirmed. But the default sentence is enhanced and fixed as three months. Accordingly the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the court on 22.4.2010 for execution of the modified sentence. It is the above conviction and sentence are challenged in this revision petition. Crl.R.P.No.2314 of 2010 -: 4 :- 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also perused the judgments of the courts below. 5. As this court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction recorded by the court below, the counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, a breathing time may be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the compensation amount. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the said submission can be considered favourably but subject to slight enhancement with respect to the compensation amount. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction against the revision petitioner u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, while confirming the sentence of imprisonment ordered as modified and refixed by the lower appellate court, the revision petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant as Crl.R.P.No.2314 of 2010 -: 5 :- compensation u/s.357(3) of Cr.P.C. within three months from today and in case of default in paying the amount within the above stipulated time, the revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 2nd December, 2010 to receive the sentence and to pay the compensation amount. In case any failure in appearing before the court below and paying the amount as directed above, the trial court is free to take coercive steps against the revision petitioner. The coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 2.12.2010. Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. Jvt