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. 73 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRA.190/2005 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA CC.2/2004 of JDUL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RAMANKARI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------ P.J.THOMAS @ JOMON, AGED 39, S/O MATHAI JOSEPH, COMPANY EMPLOYEE, RESIDING AT MAVELIKALAN VEEDU,VEZHAPRA P.O., RAMANKARY, KUTTANADU TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.MAURICE VINCENT RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------- 1. GEORGE JOSEPH, CHENNATTUSSERY VEEDU, RAMANKARY P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Crl.R.P. No. 73 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 petitioner now faces a sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months. There is a further direction to pay an amount of Rs.78,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. The cheque is for an amount of Rs.75,000/-. It bears the date 1.6.2003. Signature in the cheque is admitted. Notice of demand though duly received and acknowledged, did not evoke any response. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to P6. The petitioner did not adduce any defence evidence. 3. The courts below concurrently came to the Crl.R.P.No.73/08 : 2 : 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. 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 and the petitioner may be saved of the trauma of any deterrent substantive sentence of imprisonment. 5. Having gone through the impugned concurrent judgments, I reckon the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner to be reasonable, fair and informed. The impugned verdict of guilty and conviction do not suffer Crl.R.P.No.73/08 : 3 : from any vice warranting revisional interference. 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 Anilkumar v. Shammi [2002(3) KLT 852]. I do not find any compelling reasons in this case that can persuade me 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 from June 2003 onwards for the redressal of his grievances. I do further note that the delay of 556 days in filing this revision petition has been condoned by me without imposing any condition also. The complainant can be directed to be adequately compensated and the sentence imposed shall be reduced. The challenge can succeed only to Crl.R.P.No.73/08 : 4 : the above extent. 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/complainant. 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.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 three months. 9. 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 Crl.R.P.No.73/08 : 5 : 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