IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 60 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRA.117/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THODUPUZHA ST.1057/2005 OF JFCM-II, PEERMADE .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------- T.N.BOSE, S/O.NEELAKANDAN, THOTTIYIL VEEDU, DOOR NO.366, THEKKADY P.O., KUMILY. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ANTONY C.P., S/O.PHILIPPOSE, CHAVARIPPARA VEEDU, CHOTTUPARA KARA, VANDIPERIYAR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 9.1.08 , THE COURT ON 09/01/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Crl.R.P. No. 60 OF 2008 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 9th 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.1,20,000/-. It bears the date 1.12.2004. The petitioner now faces a sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. Before the learned Magistrate, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. Signature in the cheque is admitted. Notice of demand though duly received and acknowledged, did not evoke any response. No defence evidence was adduced. 3. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that the complainant has succeeded in Crl.R.P.60/08 : 2 : 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. Accordingly they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments. 4. 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 substantive sentence of imprisonment may be avoided. Reasonable further time may be granted to make the payment and avoid the sentence, it is prayed. 5. 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 Crl.R.P.60/08 : 3 : 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. 6. 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 to the above extent. Crl.R.P.60/08 : 4 : 7. 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. 8. 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.1,35,000/- (Rupees one lakh and thirty five thousand only) as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 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 Crl.R.P.60/08 : 5 : before the learned Magistrate on or before 1.3.08 for execution of the sentence. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks