The court maintains conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, allowing for modification in compensation timelines considering personal circumstances of the accused.

O R D E R

Dated this the 10th day of March, 2023 The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.269 of

2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad. The case originated from a complaint filed by the 1st respondent alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act . The 1st respondent alleged that, the accused is her close friend and had borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from her on 13.11.2012, promising to repay the amount within one month. Towards discharge of this liability, the accused issued a cheque, which, on presentation, was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Despite issuance of notice demanding payment, the cheque amount was not paid.

2. The trial court, after evaluation of evidence and consideration of the legal aspects found the revision petitioner guilty and thereupon, convicted and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and imposed a sentence of a fine of Rs.1,50,000, with a direction to pay the amount as compensation under Section 357 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code . Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner preferred an appeal and the Sessions court allowed the appeal in part by modifying the simple imprisonment for three months to imprisonment for a day till rising of the court.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the first respondent/complainant.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner put forth various contentions, assailing the legality of the findings rendered by the trial and appellate courts. Having carefully gone through the judgments, I find the trial court to have rendered its findings after proper appreciation of evidence and consideration of the legal principles. The appellate court having sifted through the evidence once more and having affirmed the findings, I find no reason to invoke the revisional jurisdiction for interfering with the well considered judgments.

5. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, at least, the time limit for remitting / paying the compensation may be extended, considering that the petitioner is a lady her son is mentally ill. I find the request to be reasonable, in view of the above mentioned circumstances and since the offence under Section 138 is quasi criminal in nature.

In the result, the criminal revision petition is dismissed and the time limit for remitting / paying compensation ordered by the trial court is extended by a period of ten months. In default of payment within the extended time, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The petitioner shall remit / pay the compensation and appear before the trial court for undergoing the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court within the ten months. In view of the extension granted, the non-bailable warrant, if any, pending against the petitioner, shall be kept in abeyance for ten months.