KALAVATHY Vs. HARIKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the complainant in C. C.No. 6 of 2008 on the file of the learned II Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry and she had filed a private complaint against the respondent herein for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial Court had convicted the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The petitioner has chosen to prefer this criminal revision being not satisfied with the sentence imposed on the accused.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the trial Court had sentenced the accused maximum period of two years imprisonment, it has not awarded any compensation to the petitioner under Section 357 of Cr. P. C. The cheque amount involved in this case is Rs. 2,50,000/-. It is further submitted that the petitioner is an old lady and if any compensation amount has been ordered that would have benefited the petitioner instead of awarding the maximum sentence of imprisonment to the respondent/accused. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submitted that though the petition for enhancement of sentence is filed, the petitioner only seeks for modification of the order of the trial Court thereby enabling the petitioner to get some compensation amount from the respondent/accused.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further pointed out that after filing this criminal revision, the petitioner came to understand that the accused had also preferred an appeal against his conviction in Crl. A. No. 24/2009 and the same is also pending before the learned III Addl. Sessions Judge, Pondicherry.