IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2007 / 2ND MAGHA 1928 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 323 of 2007(E) ------------------------------ CRA.438/2005 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.618/2001 of MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE, PARAVOOR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------- SURESH BABU, S/O.SREEDHARAN, DEVAMATHA HOUSE, NEDUNGOLAM, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. RAVEENDRAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, UDAYA BHAVAN, NEDUNGOLAM, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.KAMAPPU SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2007, ALONG WITH CRRP.NO.324 OF 2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- Crl.R.P.Nos.323 of 2007 & 324 of 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January 2007 O R D E R These revision petitions are directed against concurrent verdicts of guilty, convictions and sentences imposed in two separate prosecutions between the same party under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. On vital facts, there is little dispute. The cheques are for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively The cheques bear the dates 16/10/2000 and 21/10/2000 respectively. 3. Notices of demand in both cases were duly received. They evoked no response at all. The complainant examined himself and proved relevant documents in both cases. No defence evidence whatsoever was adduced. 4. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that the complainant has succeeded in establishing all the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act. Accordingly they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments. Crl.R.P.No.323/07 & 324/07 2 5. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent judgments in these two cases, the learned counsel for the petitioner only prays that leniency may be shown on the question of sentence. No other contentions are raised. I am satisfied that the verdicts of guilty and convictions are absolutely justified and they do not warrant interference at all. 6. Coming to the question of sentence in the prosecution relating to the cheque for Rs.3,00,000/-, the petitioner faces a sentence of S.I for a period of five months and to pay the actual cheque amount as compensation and in default to undergo S.I for a further period of two months. In the prosecution relating to the cheque for Rs.10,000/-, the petitioner faces a sentence of S.I for a period of three months and to pay the actual cheque amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo S.I for a period of one month. 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 vs.Shammi [2002(3)KLT 852]. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no compelling reasons which Crl.R.P.No.323/07 & 324/07 3 can persuade this court to insist on imposition of any deterrent substantive sentence of imprisonment. Leniency can be shown to the petitioner but subject only to the compulsion of adequately and fairly compensating the victim who has now been compelled to fight three rounds of legal battle and to wait from October 2000 for the redressal of his grievances. I am further satisfied that reasonable further time can be granted to the petitioner to pay the amount and avoid the default sentence also. 7. In the result: a) These revision petitions are allowed in part. b) The impugned verdicts of guilty and convictions 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 in both prosecutions. The said sentence shall run concurrently. He is further directed under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C to pay i) an amount of Rs.3,25,000/- (Rupees three lakhs twenty five thousand only) as compensation in Crl.R.P.No.323/07 & 324/07 4 Crl.R.P.No.323/2007 and in default, to undergo S.I for a period of three months. ii) an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) and in default to undergo S.I for a period of one month in Crl.R.P.No.324/2007. If realised, the entire amount shall be released to the respondent/complainant as compensation. 8. The petitioner shall have time till 30/03/2007 to appear before the learned Magistrate to serve the modified sentence hereby imposed. The impugned sentence shall not be executed till that date. If the petitioner does not appear before the learned Magistrate on or before that date, the learned Magistrate shall thereafter proceed to execute the modified sentence hereby imposed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.R.P.No.323/07 & 324/07 5 Crl.R.P.No.323/07 & 324/07 6 R.BASANT, J C.R.R.P.No. ORDER 21ST DAY OF JULY 2006