B A I L S L I P Kosalairaman, S/o Velayutham Chettiar, Petitioner/Accused herein is on bail vide order of this Hon'ble Court dated 22.6.2007 made in MP.No.1 of 2007 in Crl.RC.No.914/2007. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:07.08.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Crl.R.C.No.914 of 2007 Kosalairaman ... Petitioner vs. Balachandran ... Respondent Prayer: Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the judgment passed in C.A.No.73 of 2005 dated 24.05.2007 on the file of Additional District Sessions Court (FTC 1) Erode confirming the judgment passed in C.C.No.424 of 2003 dated 04.02.2005 on the file of J.M.I Erode. For Petitioner : Mr.C.S.Saravanan For Respondent : Mr.N.Manokaran O R D E R Animadverting upon the order dated 24.05.2007, passed by the learned Additional District Sessions Court (FTC 1) Erode, in C.A.No.73 of 2005, confirming the judgment dated 04.02.2005, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I Erode, in C.C.No.424 of 2003, this criminal revision is focussed. 2. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus: (a) The respondent herein filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as against the petitioner. (b) Inasmuch as the accused pleaded not guilty, trial was conducted. During trial, the respondent herein examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. On the side of the accused, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D1 was marked. (c) Ultimately, the trial Court found the accused guilty, recorded the conviction and imposed the sentence as under: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ----------------------------------------------------------------- Case No. Offence Punishment imposed ----------------------------------------------------------------- C.C. No. U/s 138 r/w One year S.I., fine 424/03 142 of NI Act amount of Rs.3,000/- in default, to undergo one month S.I. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Challenging such judgment of the lower Court, C.A.No.73 of 2005 was filed for nothing, but to be dismissed, confirming the judgment of the trial Court in all aspects, by the appellate Court. 4. Being aggrieved by and disconcerted with the judgments of both the Courts below, this revision is focussed on various grounds, the warp and woof of them would run thus: The lower Court failed to take into consideration that the cheque was given only by way of security. Due opportunity was not given by the Magistrate to put forth their case. Accordingly, the revision petitioner prayed for setting aside the order of both the Courts below and for acquitting him. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of argument made a supine submission to the effect that he is restricting his arguments only to the extent of getting the quantum reduced. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether the sentence imposed by the trial Court and as confirmed by the appellate Court is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and whether it is against penological principles. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the fact that the cheque amount involved is only Rs.2,00,000/-, whereas, the lower Court awarded one year imprisonment and also fine. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would submit that the sentence imposed is appropriate warranting no interference. 8. Taking into consideration the fact that the amount involved in the cheque is Rs.2,00,000/-, I am of the considered opinion that imposing of one year imprisonment is on the higher side and such imprisonment is not in consonance with the present trend in imposing punishments under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act cases. As such, in commensurate with the prevailing trend in imposing sentence, I would like to reduce the sentence of one year simple imprisonment to two months' simple imprisonment. 9. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent would make an extempore submission that in view of this Court having chosen to reduce the sentence from one year to two months simple imprisonment, this Court might set aside the fine part of the sentence and impose compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. on par with the cheque amount. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ submit that the respondent would not be able to pay the compensation amount. It is a matter of recovery and at this stage, this Court need not ponder over it. Hence I am of the considered opinion that in view of reducing the substantive portion of imprisonment from one year simple imprisonment to two months simple imprisonment, I would like to replace the fine amount by imposing compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) payable by the revision petitioner to the respondent as per Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this criminal revision case is disposed of. The learned Magistrate on receipt of a copy of this order shall take steps to issue warrant to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and commit him to jail to undergo two months' simple imprisonment, if not he had already undergone. The learned Magistrate also shall see to it that the compensation amount is recovered and paid to the complainant. Gms Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To 1. The Additional Sessions Judge (FTC 1), Erode. 2. Do Through The Principal and Sessions Judge, Erode. 3. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Erode. 4. Do Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode. 5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras. + 1 cc to Mr. C.S. Saravanan, Advocate SR No.36706 + 1 cc to Mr. N. Manokaran, Advocate SR No.36992 BVN(CO) SR/27.8.2009 Crl.R.C.No.914 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/