P M LALITHAMBIKA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in S.T.C. No.1562 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate- I, Kottayam challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against her for an offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable INstruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The cheque amount was ` 56,000/-.

(2.) I heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) WHAT now survives for consideration is the legality of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ettappadan Ahammedkutty v. E.P. Abdullakoya - 2008 (1) KLT 851 default sentence cannot be imposed for the enforcement of an order for compensation under Sec.357 (3) Cr.P.C. I am, therefore, inclined to modify the sentence to one of fine only. Accordingly, for the conviction under Section 138 of the Act the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of ` 60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only). The said fine shall be paid as compensation under Section 357 (1) Cr.P.C. The revision petitioner is permitted either to deposit the said fine amount before the Court below or directly pay the compensation to the complainant within five months from today and produce a memo to that effect before the trial Court in case of direct payment. If she fails to deposit or pay the said amount within the aforementioned period she shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence.