Pushpalatha @ Ambika vs P.K. Babu and The State of Kerala

V.K. Mohanan, J.—The accused in a prosecution for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ''the N.I. Act'') is the revision petitioner as he is aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.3.2011 in S.T. No. 275 of 2010 of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, N. Paravur and the judgment dated 19.9.2012 in Crl.A. No. 137 of 2011 of the court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Adhoc-III), N. Paravur. The trial court sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 90,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months more. If the fine amount is realised, the whole amount shall be given to the complainant as compensation u/s 357(1) of the Cr.P.C. The appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court.

As this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, who is a lady, submitted that the sentence imposed against the revision petitioner is exorbitant and unreasonable and the same may be set aside. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that some breathing time may be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the fine amount as ordered by the appellate court.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the said submission can be considered positively and while granting time, the interest of the complainant has also to be protected. In the present case, the cheque in question is dated 2.8.2007, that too for an amount of Rs. 90,000/-, but so far no amount is paid. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner herein is a lady. Following the dictum laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the decision reported in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., wherein it was held that in the case of dishonour of cheques, the compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspects, according to me, the sentence of imprisonment can be modified and reduced to one day simple imprisonment. But, at the same time, the interest of the complainant has also to be safeguarded. Thus, the fine amount can be enhanced.

In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner u/s 138 of the N.I. Act as recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court is further modified and reduced to one day simple imprisonment, i.e., till the rising of the court. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is further sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand only) within three months from today and in default, she is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 11th April, 2013 to receive the modified sentence ordered by this Court and to deposit the above enhanced fine amount. In case of any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the trial court on the above date to receive the modified sentence fixed by this Court and to deposit 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 and to realise the fine. On realisation of the fine amount, a sum of Rupees One lakh shall be paid to the complainant as compensation u/s 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. and the remaining amount shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 11th April, 2013.

This Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of with the above direction.