IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 166 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRA.99/2006 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.579/2001 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------- INDIRA, 'ROHINI', NEAR PATTATHILKAVU TEMPLE, VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ----------------------------------------------- 1. P.S. PADMAVATHI AMMA, W/O. APPUKUTTAN NAIR, SREEPADAM, VIKAS NAGAR-100, PATTATHANAM EAST, KOLLAM-21. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P.No. 166 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th 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.49,200/-. It bears the date 15.06.2001. The petitioner now faces a sentence of S.I for a period of three months and to pay an amount of Rs.55,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo S.I for a period of two months. 2. Signature in the cheque is admitted. Notice of demand did not evoke any reply. No specific plea was raised. No defence evidence was adduced. 3. 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. Accordingly they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments. 4. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned 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 Crl.R.P.No. 166 of 2008 2 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. 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. I am satisfied that the impugned verdict of guilty and conviction do not warrant any interference at all. 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 merity 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 from 2001 for the redressal of his grievances. He Crl.R.P.No. 166 of 2008 3 deserves to be compensated satisfactorily. The challenge can succeed only to 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. 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.57,500/- (Rupees Fifty seven thousand five hundred only) as compensation and in default to undergo S.I for a period of 3 months. If realised the entire amount shall be released to the complainant. 8. The petitioner shall have time till 29.02.08 to raise and pay the compensation amount and avoid the default sentence. The modified sentence hereby imposed shall not be executed till that date. On or before 01.03.08, the petitioner shall appear and his sureties shall produce him before the learned Magistrate for execution of the modified sentence hereby imposed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- Crl.R.P.No. 166 of 2008 4