IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3329 of 2010() ------------------------------ (CRA.544/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-2), THRISSUR CC.1478/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I,CHALAKUDY) .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAYASREE, D/O.KOMALAN, PALAKKAL HOUSE, THAZHEKKAD VILLAGE, KALLETTUMKARA DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SURESH, S/O.SREEDHARAN, THOTTATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE & DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.V. TEK CHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.3329 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 2010. O R D E R The accused in a prosecution for an offence u/s.138 of 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 counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner has no contention on merit, but the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the revision petitioner is unreasonable and arbitrary and also submitted that the revision petitioner is ready to compensate the complainant but she require some time to pay the compensation amount. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I find no reason to deny the above request and while granting some time to pay the compensation, the amount can be enhanced slightly considering the fact that the cheque in question is dated 5.8.2004 that too for an amount of 2 Crl. R.P.No.3329 of 2010 Rs.2,25,000/- and the said amount is with the revision petitioner for the last 6 years, though the same belong to the complainant. The apex court in a recent 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. In the light of the above settled legal position and the facts referred above, I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment ordered against the revision petitioner requires reconsideration, as the petitioner is a lady and some breathing time can be granted to her to pay the compensation amount to be fixed by this court. 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 order to undergo sentence of imprisonment, the sentence is confined to fine only and accordingly, the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of 3 Crl. R.P.No.3329 of 2010 Rs.2,94,812/-, which shall be deposited in the trial court 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 fine amount in the trial court on or before 11.2.2011. In case, any failure on the part of the revision petitioner 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 her. On realisation of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation u/s.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and the remaining amount shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. The execution of warrant if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 11.2.2011. Criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/