IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2011 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2203 of 2004(A) ------------------------------- REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- SMT.SANTHA KUMARI, D/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, MENAKATH HOUSE, UDAYA NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- 1. RAJA, S/O. SURESH, PATTATH HOUSE, AYYANTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.C.HARI RANI, J * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P.No.2203 of 2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of March 2011 O R D E R The revision petitioner stands convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court convicted and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month as per judgment dated 24/10/2002 in S.T.No.894/2000. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court under Section 138 of the N.I.Act was confirmed by the appellate court (vide judgment dated 05/06/2004 in Crl.Appeal No.494/2002). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/complainant. The learned Public Prosecutor is also heard. 3. At the time of argument, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused that the revision Crl.R.P.No.2203/04 2 petitioner is not challenging the concurrent finding of conviction entered against her by the courts below for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. But, it is prayed that the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for one month may be reduced to imprisonment till rising of court and also prayed for three months time to pay/deposit the amount of compensation. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that the cheque is dated 20/05/1999 for Rs.50,000/-. It is prayed that considering the lapse of 11 years after the issuance of the cheque, the amount of compensation ordered by the courts below at Rs.50,000/- may be enhanced. 5. A concurrent finding of guilty and conviction is there against the revision petitioner by the trial court as well as by the appellate court. About 11 years is already elapsed after the issuance of the disputed cheque. In the absence of challenge on any specific grounds, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail. Therefore the verdict of guilty and conviction do not warrant any interference and the same is confirmed. Only the cheque amount of Rs.50,000/- has been Crl.R.P.No.2203/04 3 ordered as compensation by the courts below. Considering the lapse of 11 years after the issuance of cheque, I find that the compensation amount ordered by the courts below at Rs.50,000/- should be enhanced to Rs.55,000/-. The revision petitioner can be granted three months time to pay/deposit the amount of compensation and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 6. In the result, a) This revision petition is allowed in part. b) The impugned concurrent verdict of guilty and conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are confirmed. (c) But the sentence imposed is modified and reduced. In supersession of the sentence imposed on the petitioner by the courts below, she is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of court. She is further directed under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C to pay/deposit Rs.55,000/- (Rupees fifty five thousand only) as compensation within a period of three months and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The compensation amount if deposited by the revision Crl.R.P.No.2203/04 4 petitioner shall be released to the complainant on proper application. The petitioner shall have time till 21/6/2011 to pay/deposit the amount of compensation of Rs.55,000/- and thus avoid the default sentence. The petitioner shall appear and her sureties shall produce her before the learned Magistrate on 22/06/2011 for execution of the sentence. (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.R.P.No.2203/04 5 Crl.R.P.No.2203/04 6 Crl.R.P.No.2203/04 7 M.C.HARI RANI, J Crl.R.P.No.504 of 2001 ORDER 17th DAY OF JUNE 2001 Crl.R.P.No.2203/04 8 Crl.R.P.No.2203/04 9