Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 35366
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J
MRS GRACE MARIN K – Appellant
Versus
C V PREMACHANDRAN – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 1402/2001
The court established that leniency in sentencing can be granted based on financial hardship and gender, with an emphasis on the need for compensation in cases under Section 138.
Headnote:
Liability - Negotiable Instruments - Section 138 - The court confirmed the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing the offense of dishonor of cheque while modifying the sentence to include compensation to the payee.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted for an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a dishonored cheque. She appealed the conviction, seeking leniency due to financial hardship and gender consideration, while not contesting the conviction itself.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the financial difficulties of the petitioner and noted the absence of compensation awarded by the trial court. It modified the sentence accordingly to ensure justice, reducing imprisonment and imposing a fine and compensation.
Issues: Whether the sentence for the conviction under Section 138 should be modified considering the petitioner’s financial constraints and absence of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that financial hardship and gender considerations could influence sentencing under Section 138, reinforcing the necessity of awarding compensation to the aggrieved party.
Final Decision: The conviction was confirmed, but the sentence was modified to imprisonment till the rising of the court, a fine of Rs. 3,000, and compensation of Rs. 12,000.
O R D E R
In a prosecution for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Insturmnets Act (N.I.Act) launched by the 1st respondent basing upon a cheque for Rs.10,000/-, the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kozhikode, found the revision petitioner guilty. She was accordingly convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months.
2. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, she preferred Crl.A.No.62/1998 before the Sessions Judge, Kozhikode. The 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, to whom the appeal was made over, while confirming the conviction and sentence, by judgment dated 19.9.2001, dismissed the appeal. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition is preferred.
3. Today when thew revision petition came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a lady and that because of the : 2:
financial difficulty, she could not discharge the liability and was persuaded to face the prosecution. It is submitted that the revision petitioner is prepared to pay the cheque amount. On gender consideration, the learned counsel sought for leniency in sentence. It was also submitted that the revision petitioner is not assailing the conviction. The submission is recorded.
4. Having due regard to the facts and circumstances, I find that in addition to the ground urged by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, no compensation is seen awarded by the trial court. Therefore, I find that the sentence requires modification and that a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.3,000/- with direction to pay Rs.12,000/- to the 1st respondent as compensation would meet the ends of justice.
In the result, the revision petition is allowed. While confirming the conviction, the sentence is reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.3,000/-. The revision petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- to the 1st respondent as compensation. In default : 3:
of payment of fine and compensation, the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month and five months respectively. The revision petitioner is directed to surrender the before the trial court which shall see the execution of sentence and report compliance. The revision petitioner is granted six weeks time to remit the fine and compensation.
P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE.
: 4:
P.S. GOPINATHAN, J.
.............................................
Crl.R.P.NO.1402 OF 2001 ............................................
5th day of November, 2012
O R D E R
: 5:
