IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2008 / 28TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 126 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRA.675/2005 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.271/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOTTARAKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------- JOHN JACOB, KOZHIKIZHAKKATHIL, NELLIKUNNAM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ 1. M.THOMAS, BRIGHT HOUSE, KARIKKOM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2008, THE COURT ON 18/01/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Crl. R.P. No. 126 OF 2008 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 18th day of January, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I Act. The petitioner now faces a sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of five months and to pay an amount of Rs.75,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of four months. 2. The cheque is for an amount of Rs.75,000/-. It bears the date 22.10.2003. The courts below have concurrently came to the conclusion that the complainant has succeeded in establishing all ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not strain to assail the verdict of guilty and conviction on merits. Crl.R.P.No.126/08 : 2 : The learned counsel only prays that leniency may be shown on the question of sentence and the petitioner may be given breathing time to make the payment and avoid the sentence. 4. I have perused the impugned concurrent judgments. The impugned verdict of guilty and conviction are found to be absolutely reasonable and unexceptionable. In the absence of challenge on any specific grounds, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail. 5. Coming to the question of sentence, I find merit in the prayer for leniency. I have already adverted to the principles governing imposition of sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I Act in the decision reported in Anilkumar v. Shammi [2002(3) KLT 852]. I am satisfied that there are no compelling reasons which can persuade this Court to insist on imposition of any deterrent substantive sentence of imprisonment. Leniency can be shown on the question of sentence, but subject only to the compulsion of ensuring adequate and just compensation for the Crl.R.P.No.126/08 : 3 : victim/complainant, who has been compelled to fight two rounds of legal battle by now and to wait from 2003 for the redressal of his grievances. 6. In the nature of the relief which I am proposed to grant, it is not necessary to wait for issue and return of notice to the respondent. 7. In the result: a) This Crl.R.P is allowed in part; b) The impugned verdict of guilty and conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I Act are upheld; c) But the sentence imposed is modified and reduced. In supersession of the sentence imposed on the petitioner by the courts below, he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of court. He is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees ninety thousand only) as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months. 8. The petitioner shall have time till 29.2.08 to comply Crl.R.P.No.126/08 : 4 : with the directions for payment of compensation. This modified sentence shall not be executed till that day. The petitioner shall appear and his sureties shall produce him before the learned Magistrate on or before 1.3.08 for execution of the sentence. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks