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. 152 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRA.36/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, ALAPPUZHA CC.439/2005 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------------------- N.P. SASIDHARAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. KUNJAGU, MANNEEDAVIL VEEDU, MANNACHERRY P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.BIMAL K.NATH SRI.S.JAMAL SRI.E.M.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.SMITHA DIVAKARAN SRI.SREEVALSAN.V RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. P.K. SUGATHAN, S/O. LATE PARAMESWARAN, KATTUVELLIKKAKATHU, NORTH ARYAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY P.P. 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. 152 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of January, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act. The cheque is for an amount of Rs.25,000/-. It bears the date 30/6/05. The petitioner now faces a sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three months. There is a further direction to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. Signature in the cheque is admitted. Handing over of the cheque is admitted. Notice of demand though duly served and acknowledged did not evoke any reply. No defence evidence whatsoever was adduced. The accused took up a contention that the cheque was not Crl.R.P. No. 152 OF 2008 -: 2 :- issued for the due discharge of any legally enforcible debt/liability to the complainant; but it was issued as security to another – one Sangham. 3. The courts below came to the conclusion that the complainant has succeeded in establishing all the ingredients of the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act. Accordingly, the courts below proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments. 4. Called upon to explain the nature of the 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. I have perused the impugned judgments. I find the same to be absolutely justified and unexceptional. In the absence of challenge on any specific grounds, it is not necessary for me to advert to the facts in any greater detail in this order. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the sentence imposed is excessive. The substantive sentence of imprisonment may be reduced. An appropriate amount as compensation may be directed to be paid. Crl.R.P. No. 152 OF 2008 -: 3 :- Reasonable further time may be granted to the petitioner to make the payment, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. I find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 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 2005 for the redressal of his grievances. He 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/complainant. 8. In the result: (a) This Crl.R.P is allowed in part; Crl.R.P. No. 152 OF 2008 -: 4 :- (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.30,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. If realised the entire amount shall be released to the complainant. 11. The petitioner shall have time till 29.02.08 to raise and pay the amount and avoid the default sentence. The modified sentence hereby imposed shall not be executed till 29.02.08. The petitioner shall appear and his sureties shall produce him before the learned Magistrate on or before 01.03.08 for execution of the modified sentence hereby imposed. 12. It is submitted that an amount of Rs.10,000/- is in deposit before the learned Magistrate. Needless to say, credit shall be given to the said amount. Such amount shall forthwith be released to the complainant also. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge