IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 105 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRA.705/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK-II), ALAPPUZHA CC.130/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II,ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/APPELLNAT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------- B.MOHANAN,S/O.KUNJU PANICKER ALUVILAYIL, THALEERADI MURI, VALLIKUNNAM,MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANTS ------------------------- 1. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION VELLAYAMBALAM, TRIVANDRUM,REPRESENTED BY K.S.SASEENDRAN, ASST.MANAGER KFC BRANCH OFFICE, ALAPPUHA. 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 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON 16/01/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Crl.R.P. No. 105 OF 2008 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 16th 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. There are two cheques involved dated 15.2.04 and 15.3.04. The total amount due as per these two cheques is Rs.3,24,622/-. The petitioner now faces a sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one year. There is a further direction under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. to pay the actual cheque amount as compensation and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. 2. Before the learned Magistrate, the complainant examined PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to P6. Exts.D1 and D2 were marked on the side of the accused. The courts below concurrently held that the complainant has succeeded in establishing all ingredients of the offence punishable under Crl.R.P.105/08 : 2 : Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Accordingly they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments. 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned concurrent judgments. Called upon to explain the nature of challenge, 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. The petitioner is willing to adequately compensate the complainant and prays for avoiding the deterrent substantive sentence of imprisonment. Reasonable further time may be granted to raise and pay the amount and avoid the default sentence, prays the learned counsel for the petitioner. 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 Crl.R.P.105/08 : 3 : 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 victim/complainant, who has been compelled to fight two rounds of legal battle by now and to wait for three years for the redressal of his grievances. He deserves to be compensated satisfactorily. The challenge can succeed only Crl.R.P.105/08 : 4 : to the above extent. 6. In the result: a) This Crl.R.P is allowed in part; b) The impugned concurrent 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.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and fifty thousand only) as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months. 7. 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 Crl.R.P.105/08 : 5 : execution of the sentence. 8. 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. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks