IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 31 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRA.419/2004 of III ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.1371/1990 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PERUMBAVOOR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------- NARAYANI, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O. PONNAPPAN, KANIYAKKUDY HOUSE, MALAYATTOOR KARA, MALAYATTOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.ASOKAN SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE OF KERALA -------------------------------------------------------- 1. GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. P.A.NARAYANAN, PANDALA HOUSE, MALAYATTOOR KARA, MALAYATTOOR VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Crl.R.P. No. 31 OF 2008 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is filed against the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Signature in the cheque is admitted. The courts below have concurrently come to the conclusion that the complainant has succeeded in establishing all the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of the materials presently available, the petitioner does not want to challenge the validity of the verdict of guilty and conviction. It is prayed that a lenient view may be taken and the sentence imposed may be modified and reduced. The petitioner is a cancer patient. She is making CRRP.31/08 : 2 : arrangements for making payment through her son. Some time may be given and the petitioner may be saved of any deterrent substantive sentence of imprisonment. This is the only contention raised. 3. The impugned judgment has been perused by me. In the total absence of any challenge against the verdict of guilty and conviction, it is unnecessary for me to advert to the facts in any greater detail in this order. I am satisfied the verdict of guilty and conviction are absolutely justified. 4. Coming to the question of sentence, I have already adverted to principles governing imposition of sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in the decision in Anilkumar Vs. Shemmy [2002 (3) KLT 852]. I am satisfied that there are no compelling circumstances in this case which should persuade this Court to impose any deterrent substantive sentence of imprisonment. Leniency can be shown on the question of sentence but it has to be ensured that the complainant who has been continuing the legal battle CRRP.31/08 : 3 : from 1998 for the redressal of his grievance is compensated adequately. 5. In the result: (a) This revision is allowed in part. (b) The concurrent verdict of guilty and conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act are upheld. But the sentence is reduced. (c) In super session of the sentence imposed on the petitioner by the courts below, she is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of court. She is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three weeks. If realised, the entire amount shall be released to the complainant. 6. The petitioner shall have time till 29.2.08 to comply with the directions for payment of compensation. This modified sentence shall not be executed till that day. The petitioner shall appear and her sureties shall produce her CRRP.31/08 : 4 : before the learned Magistrate on or before 1.3.08 for execution of the sentence. 7. In the nature of the relief which I have granted to the petitioner, I am satisfied that it is not necessary to wait for issue and return of notice to the complainant. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks