IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 1117 of 2006(D)
1. PUSHPA BOSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. O.K.VILASINI,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.N.CHANDRABABU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :17/10/2006
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P.No. 1117 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 17th day of October, 2006
O R D E R
This revision petition is directed against an appellate judgment
in an appeal preferred by an accused person against the verdict of
guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of
the N.I. Act.
2. The petitioner is the complainant. Concurrently the verdict
of guilty and conviction have been upheld. The trial court imposed a
sentence of S.I. for a period of three months and to pay the actual
cheque amount of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation and in default to
undergo S.I. for a period of one month. The appellate court, taking
into account the fact that the accused is a woman, modified the
sentence imposed. The substantive sentence of imprisonment for
three months was reduced to S.I. for a period of one week. The
direction for payment of compensation and the default sentence were
both upheld.
Crl.R.P.No. 1117 of 2006 2
3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the appellate judgment
modifying the sentence. What is the grievance? The contention is that the
reduction of substantive sentence of imprisonment is not justified. The
mere fact that the accused is a woman should not have weighed with the
court to so drastically reduce the substantive sentence of imprisonment.
This is the short contention raised.
4. I have already adverted to the principles governing imposition of
sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in the decision
in Anilkumar v. Shammy (2002 (3) KLT 852). In the facts and
circumstances of the case, I am not persuaded to agree that indulgence
shown by the court below is not warranted or justified in any view of the
matter.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that to his
knowledge there is no revision petition filed by the accused against the
impugned appellate judgment. Certainly if the accused comes before me
and prays for further modification of the sentence, the court could certainly
consider whether any higher amount of compensation need be directed to
be paid in favour of the petitioner. Otherwise, the sentence imposed by the
Crl.R.P.No. 1117 of 2006 3
appellate court does not at all deserve interference at the instance of the
petitioner herein.
6. This revision petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed with
the above observations.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm