Modification of sentence in dishonour of cheque cases is warranted when the original penalty is deemed excessive given the offence's nature.

ORDER

This revision is directed against the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence upon the petitioner in connection with the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act .

2. As per the judgment rendered on 29.07.2015, the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor, convicted the petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced her to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months with a direction to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation to the complainant/1st respondent. Though the petitioner challenged the aforesaid verdict in appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Pathanamthitta, concurred with the findings of the learned Magistrate and dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the courts below, the petitioner is before this Court with this revision.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the complainant/1st respondent.

4. On going through the impugned judgment as well as the case records, it is seen that there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below that the petitioner committed the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act in connection with the dishonour of a cheque for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, which she issued to the complainant towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt. As such, there is absolutely no scope for interference with the conviction awarded by the courts below. However, it appears that the sentence awarded by the courts below is too harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner. Having regard to the nature of offence involved in this case, I am of the view that the sentence awarded by the courts below is liable to be modified to imprisonment till the rising of the Court while retaining the direction to pay compensation as such.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that already

1/4th of the compensation amount of Rs.1,50,000/- had been deposited in compliance with the direction of this Court while admitting the revision. The learned counsel further sought a breathing time for the petitioner to make payment of the balance amount to the complainant.

6. In the light of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to grant a period of two months’

time to the petitioner to pay the compensation amount ordered by the courts below.

In the result, the revision stands allowed in part as follows:

1) The concurrent findings of the courts below, convicting the petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, are hereby confirmed.

2) In supersession of the sentence awarded by the courts below, the petitioner is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court with a direction to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only) to the complainant/1st respondent under Section

357(3) Cr.P.C.

3) If the petitioner had already deposited 1/4th of the compensation amount before the Trial Court, in compliance with the order dated 13.09.2018 of this Court while ordering the suspension of sentence, the aforesaid amount shall be adjusted with the compensation ordered by this Court, and the petitioner is liable to make payment of only the balance amount.

4) The petitioner is granted a period of two months’ time from today to make payment of the compensation amount in compliance with this order.

5) In default of payment of compensation as directed above, the petitioner will undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months.

6) The petitioner shall surrender before the Trial Court within a period of two months from today to undergo imprisonment