IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2008 / 9TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 202 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRA.572/2004 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURTS (ADHOC), MAVELIKKARA CC.341/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHENGANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------- KAUSALYA, D/O.THANKAMMA, KALA BHAVANAM, NEAR ERUPATHETHIL KADAVU, THEKKEKKARA EAST MURI, PALLIPPAD. BY ADV. SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL SRI.V.MADHUSUDHANAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. RAJU VARGHESE, S/O.PAPPY VARGHESE, CHATHANKAREL THARAYIL, CHENNITHALA SOUTH P.O. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P.No.202 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of January, 2008 ORDER 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.1,25,000/-. It bears the date 25.03.02. The petitioner, after appellate modification of the sentence, now faces a sentence of s.i for a period of three months and to pay an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- (ie. the actual cheque amount) as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C and in default to undergo s.i for a period of one month. 2. Signature in the cheque is admitted. The contention raised was that the cheque was issued not for the due discharge of any legally enforcible debt/liability, but as a security. 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. Crl.R.P.No.202 of 2008 2 4. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned concurrent 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 fairly concedes that he does not want to challenge 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 considered the impugned concurrent judgments, I am satisfied that the verdict of guilty and conviction are absolutely justified and impugned judgments are legally unexceptionable. 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 Crl.R.P.No.202 of 2008 3 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 2002 for the redressal of his genuine 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. 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.1,40,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Thousand 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. 9. The petitioner shall have time till 15.03.08 to raise and pay the compensation amount and avoid the default sentence. Crl.R.P.No.202 of 2008 4 The modified sentence hereby imposed shall not be executed till that date. On or before 17.03.08, 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/-