IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2008 / 20TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 75 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRA.374/2005 of ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE-III, KOLLAM CC.1432/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, PUNALUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------- VIJAYAN C.JOSEPH, S/O JOSEPH, CHIRAYIL VEEDU, KUZHIYIL LANE, OPP. CHANDRA THEATRE, PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE ------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. VIJAYAN, S/O RAGHAVAN, KARTHIKA, BHARANIKAVU, PUNALUR, KOLLAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.1.08, THE COURT ON 10/01/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Crl.R.P. No. 75 OF 2008 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 10th 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 cheque is for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. It bears the date 14.9.2001. Signature in the cheque is admitted. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to P6. The accused did not adduce any defence evidence. 2. The courts below 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. The accused has not succeeded in proving his case or even in generating a reasonable doubt about the case of the complainant, it was held. Accordingly they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments. 3. Called upon to explain the nature of challenge, Crl.R.P.75/08 : 2 : which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not strain to assail the verdict of guilty and conviction on merits. The learned counsel only prays that leniency may be shown on the question of sentence. 4. Having gone through the impugned concurrent judgments, I am satisfied that, that is an informed and fair stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The impugned verdict of guilty and conviction are found to be absolutely justified. They do not warrant any revisional interference. 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 Crl.R.P.75/08 : 3 : 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 victim/complainant, who has been compelled to fight two rounds of legal battle by now and to wait from 2001 for the redressal of his grievances. I take note that the delay of 608 days has been condoned without imposing any conditions. I am satisfied that the sentence can be modified and reduced after directing payment of appropriate compensation. 6. In the nature of the relief which I propose to grant, it is not necessary to wait for issue and return of notice to the respondent/complainant. 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 Crl.R.P.75/08 : 4 : the courts below, he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of court. He is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and thirty thousand only) as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The amount, if realised, shall be released to the complainant. 8. 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 his sureties shall produce him before the learned Magistrate on or before 1.3.08 for execution of the sentence. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks