IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 395 of 2011() ------------------------------------- CRA.514/2009 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURTS (ADHOC), MAVELIKKARA ST.12/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, MAVELIKKARA ........................... PETITIONER(S)/ APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------------- MANIAMMA K.C. @ GRACY, KOONIYEZHATHU HOUSE, CHERUKOLE.P.O., MAVELIKARA. BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ RESPONDENT(S)/ RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PATRICIA SEBASTIAN, W/O.SEBASTIAN, IDATHEKKATHIL HOUSE, EZHAKADAVU.P.O., CHERUKOLE, MAVELIKARA. PIN: 689 009 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEK CHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: SMT V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 395 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February, 2011 O R D E R The accused in a prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I.Act') approached this Court by preferring the above revision petition challenging her conviction and sentence, imposed as per judgments of the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. 2. As this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the courts below is unreasonable and exorbitant and it is also the submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner is ready to compensate the complainant, but she requires some time. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the above submission of the learned counsel requires positive consideration, especially in the light of the fact that the petitioner is a lady hailing from poor Crl.R.PNO.395 of 2011 :-2-: family. 3. Admittedly, as per the evidence on record, the cheque is dated 5.7.2008, that too for an amount of Rs.70,000/- and thus as per the findings of the court below, the said amount is due to the complainant for the last two years. The Honourable Apex Court in the decision reported in Damodar.S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal.H. [JT 2010(4) SC 457] has held that in the case of dishonour of cheques, the compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspects. Having regard to the facts and the above legal position, I am of the view that especially the petitioner being a lady, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the courts below requires reconsideration and at the same time, the interest of the complainant has also to be protected. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I.Act as recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by Crl.R.PNO.395 of 2011 :-3-: the courts below is set aside and the sentence is confined to fine only and the order to pay compensation under Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C. is also set aside. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.77,000/- (Rupees Seventy Seven Thousand only) within three months from today and in default, the revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.77,000/- in the trial court on or before 9th May, 2011. In case of any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in making the deposit of fine amount on or before the above date, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence and for realisation of the fine amount. On realisation of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.75,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1) (b) of the Cr.P.C. and the remaining amount shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. Coercive steps, if any, pending Crl.R.PNO.395 of 2011 :-4-: against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 9th May,2011. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. MBS/