LAWS(KER)-2017-11-237

G VASANTHAKUMARI Vs. ABITHA P AND ANOTHER

Decided On November 22, 2017
G Vasanthakumari Appellant
V/S
Abitha P And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the complainant in ST No. 849/2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvan-anthapuram alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in which the 1st respondent herein has been arrayed as accused therein.

(2.) Ext.P1 dishonoured cheque dated 15.2.2005 is for Rs. 2,00,000/-. The trial court as per the judgment rendered on 24.10.2007 has convicted the 1st respondent herein for the above said offence and has sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- which is disbursable as compensation to the complainant in terms of Section 357 (1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The trial court refused to award the cheque amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation in terms of Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case in Dilip v. Kotak Mahindra Company Ltd., 2007 AIR(SCW) 2425. To impugn the conviction and sentence, the accused had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 952/2007 before the appellate sessions court concerned (Court of Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram). The appellate court as per the judgment rendered on 20.7.2010 has confirmed the conviction and modified the substantive sentence of three months simple imprisonment by reducing the same to imprisonment till the rising of the court and also confirmed the fine amount of Rs. 15,000/- with the default sentence clause of two months simple imprisonment. The petitioner (complainant) has preferred the instant revision petition challenging the judgment of the appellate court to the extent it has reduced the substantive sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court, instead of three months' simple imprisonment, and also praying for enhancing the fine/compensation amount.

(3.) Heard Sri. S. Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner (complainant), Sri. R. Rajasekharan Pillai, learned counsel appearing for R-1 (accused) and Sri. Saigi Jacob Paletty, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-2 State.