IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 329 of 2001()
1. K.M.SULOCHANA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. V.NARAYANAN
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU S. NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :22/05/2008
O R D E R
A.K. Basheer, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.RP. No. 329 of 2001
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2008.
ORDER
Petitioner was prosecuted by respondent No.1 herein for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act.
2. The trial court found her guilty and she was accordingly
convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one
year and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/- and in default to suffer simple
imprisonment for 3 months. It was further directed that Rs.15,000/-
shall be paid as compensation to the complainant if the fine amount
was realised.
3. In appeal, the above order of conviction was confirmed by
the Sessions Court. However the sentence was modified and
reduced. Petitioner was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for
3 months and to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation to
the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Procedure.
The above order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is under
challenge in this revision petition.
4. The case of the complainant was that the accused had
borrowed a sum of Rs.15,000/- from him and issued Ext.P1 cheque
in discharge of the said debt. But when the cheque was presented
for encashment, it was dishonoured because of insufficiency of
funds in the account of the accused. Though a statutory demand
notice was issued by the complainant, the amount was not repaid.
Crl.RP.329/01 2
5. The complainant was examined as Pw.1 and Exts.P1 to P5
were marked on his side. There was no oral or documentary evidence
on the side of the accused.
The defence set up by the accused appeared to be that she had
borrowed only a sum of Rs.4500/- from the complainant. She had
handed over a signed blank cheque to the complainant at the time of
borrowal. She had a further case, when questioned under Section 313
of the Code or Criminal Procedure, that the amount borrowed by her
had been repaid. But as rightly noticed by the courts below
petitioner/accused had not adduced any evidence to substantiate the
above contentions.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having
perused the materials available on record, I do not find any material
illegality or irregularity in the matter of conviction passed by the
courts below. However having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a
woman and the amount involved is not very huge, I am of the view
that some leniency can be shown in the matter of sentence. It is
submitted by Sri.Rakesh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the
amount was borrowed by the accused for the purpose of treating her
husband who was a cancer patient. He had subsequently died.
Therefore while confirming the order of conviction, the sentence of
imprisonment imposed on the petitioner is set aside.
Petitioner shall suffer imprisonment till the rising of the court.
She shall remit the amount of compensation before the trial court as
Crl.RP.329/01 3
directed by the Sessions Court. Petitioner shall appear before the court
below on September 20, 2008. On appearance of the petitioner,
learned Magistrate shall ensure that she undergoes imprisonment till
the rising of the court. If the petitioner fails to remit the amount of
compensation, she shall suffer imprisonment for one month.
A.K. Basheer
Judge.
an.