IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2009 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3751 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.203/2002 of III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.657/1997 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PARAVOOR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER: -------------------------------- SMT.SARA, HEEBA MANZIL, PARAYIL, MOODILLAVILA JUNCTION, EDAVA P.O., VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER SMT.M.JAYASREE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. NADEERA, D/O.BASHEER, KUNNUVILA VEEDU, KULAPPADAM, NEDUMPANA P.O., KOLLAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ----------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3751 of 2009 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2009 ORDER The Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Paravoor in C.C.No.657 of 1997 on her file convicted the revision petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation to the first respondent who is the complainant before the trial court. In Criminal Appeal No.203 of 2002, the third Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam confirmed the conviction and sentence. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence, this revision petition is filed. 2. Today when the revision petition came up for admission, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that he is not assailing the conviction, but assailing the sentence. According to the learned counsel, the revision petitioner is a lady aged 75 years and that the first respondent is none other than the wife of the step son of the revision petitioner and that because of the domestic dispute, the revision petitioner had to face the prosecution and that the revision petitioner had Crl.R.P.No.3751 of 2009 2 been undergoing sentence since 5/11/2009 and is now accommodated in District Jail, Kollam. Taking into account of the circumstances stated by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and on gender consideration, I find that the sentence already undergone by the revision petitioner would be sufficient substantive sentence along with the order to pay compensation. 3. In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the conviction, the sentence is reduced to imprisonment already undergone. The revision petitioner shall pay Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) as compensation to the first respondent under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She is granted six months time to pay the compensation. In the event of default of payment of compensation, she shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. The revision petitioner shall be released forthwith. Registry may communicate to the Superintendent, District Jail, Kollam. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj.