IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2010 / 30TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3127 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.250/2009 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURTS (ADHOC), MAVELIKKARA CC.341/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KAYAMKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------------- MADEENA, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O. NAZIR, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS NO. 37, 38, VALANJAVATTOM.P.O., KADAPRAMURI, KADAPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN RESPONDENS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. ABDUL SHAJI, S/O. SALAHUDEEN, SALEEN MANZL, KRISHNAPURAM MURI, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPALLY TALUK PIN 695696. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MAVELIKKARA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.V.TEK CHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2010, HE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.3127 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2010. O R D E R The revision petitioner is the accused in a prosecution for an offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and she is challenging her conviction and sentence imposed by the court below, in this revision petition. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner has no contention on merit and her only grievance is against the sentence imposed against her. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that being a lady, the sentence of imprisonment may be set aside and the revision petitioner is ready to pay the compensation amount. I find no reason to reject the above request and according to me it is only just and proper to confine the sentence only to fine and while fixing the fine amount, the fact that the cheque in question cover for an amount of Rs.1 lakh, are also to be taken into account and the said amount is with the revision petitioner for the last 3 years. 2 Crl. R.P.No.3127 of 2010 In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction against the revision petitioner u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, in suppression of the sentence to undergo imprisonment, the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay fine only and accordingly she is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,20,000/-, within 3 months from today and in default she is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to deposit the revised fine amount on or before 22.1.2011. In case, any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the court below as directed above and in paying the fine amount, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence awarded against the revision petitioner. On realisation of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation u/s.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and the remaining amount shall be paid to the State Exchequer. The execution of 3 Crl. R.P.No.3127 of 2010 warrant if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 22.1.2011. Criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/