The court upheld the conviction for dishonoring a cheque while adjusting the sentence to avoid unnecessary incarceration, emphasizing equitable remedies in money disputes.

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the conviction and sentence imposed on the Revision petitioner by the trial court and the appellate court.

2. The Revision petitioner is the accused in CC No.291/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kayamkulam. It is a prosecution initiated against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act'). The learned Magistrate after a full fledged trial found that the petitioner is guilty under of the NI Act and she was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. In default of payment of the compensation amount, the petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Court-I. Mavelikkara as Crl. Appeal No.71/2023. The appellate court, after re-appreciating the evidence, confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence imposed by the trial court. Hence, this Criminal Revision Petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I also heard the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent.

4. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence invoking the powers of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. Unless there is illegality, irregularity and impropriety, this Court need not interfere with the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence. This Court anxiously considered the impugned judgments and the contentions of the Revision petitioner. I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing to interfere with the conviction imposed on the petitioner. The trial court and the appellate court considered the entire evidence and thereafter found that the petitioner was guilty under Section 138 of the NI Act. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the conviction imposed under of the NI Act.

5. What remains is the sentence imposed on the petitioner. The sentence modified by the appellate court is simple imprisonment for one month and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with a default sentence of one month. Admittedly, it is a money transaction which leads to the prosecution. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that a substantive sentence of imprisonment is not necessary. The same can be set aside.

Therefore, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed-in-part in the following manner:

1. The conviction imposed on the revision petitioner as per the impugned judgment is confirmed.

2. The sentence imposed on the revision petitioner as per the impugned judgment is set aside, and the revision petitioner is directed to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay compensation of Rs. Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only). In default of payment of the compensation amount, the petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

3. The revision petitioner is granted six months time to pay the compensation amount and to serve the sentence. Coercive steps against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance during the above period.