IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 12TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 238 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRA.658/2004 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.509/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ATTINGAL .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------- JAYACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O. APPUKUTTAN PILLAI, "SOUPARNIKA", KARICHIYIL, AVANAVANCHERRY P.O., ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT & ACCUSED & STATE ---------------------------------------- 1. CHANDRAN, S/O. SWAMINATHAN, SIVAMANGALATHU VEEDU, ATTINGAL. 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 01/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- Crl.R.P.No.238 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is preferred by the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, aggrieved by the modified sentence imposed on the accused by the appellate court. The cheque is for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Both courts concurrently found the accused to be guilty. The trial court imposed a sentence of S.I for a period of three months. There was a further direction to pay an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. In default, the accused was directed to undergo S.I for a period of six months. The appellate court, after confirming the verdict of guilty and conviction proceeded to consider the question of sentence. The court felt that a lenient substantive sentence of imprisonment till rising of court need alone be imposed. The learned Appellate Judge did uphold the direction to pay compensation of Rs.1,10,000/-. The learned Appellate Judge wrongly assumed - evidently by looking at the preface prepared by the learned Magistrate to his judgment that no default Crl.R.P.No.238/08 2 sentence was imposed. The learned Appellate Judge then imposed a default sentence of thirty days only. 2. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the reduction of the substantive sentence as also the default sentence is unjustified. The fleabite default sentence imposed is likely to tempt the accused to undergo the default sentence and thus virtually defeat the interests of the complainant who has been prosecuting the complaint with diligence for more than four years. The short prayer is that the default sentence may be enhanced. 3. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction which I am called upon to invoke and exercise. The discretions exercised by the subordinate courts will not be lightly interfered with in revision by superior courts. I am in the facts and circumstances of this case not persuaded to invoke the revisional jurisdiction to enhance the default sentence. It may be true that sitting as a court exercising original jurisdiction or appellate jurisdiction, this court may have imposed a higher default sentence; but even that is according to me, not a sufficient reason to invoke the revisional jurisdiction to Crl.R.P.No.238/08 3 interfere with the impugned appellate judgment. I do taken note of the further fact that it is settled low now that even after the default sentence is served, the steps for recovery of the compensation amount must continue. 4. This Crl.R.P is in these circumstances dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.R.P.No.238/08 4 Crl.R.P.No.238/08 5 R.BASANT, J C.R.R.P.No. ORDER 21ST DAY OF JULY 2006