IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 595 of 2000(C) ----------------------------- CRA.61/1997 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, PARAVUR CC.1241/1994 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PERUMBAVOOR .................... REVN. PETITIONER:APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------- SUBRAMONIAN, S/O.SREEDHARAN, VAZHAYIL HOUSE, SOUTH VELLARAPPILLY, SREEMOOLANAGARAM, CHOWARA. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT --------------- 1. P.K.SUGATHAN, SON OF KRISHNAN, PALAYOOR HOUSE, T.B.ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.VINOD CHANDRAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P No.595 of 2000 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009 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.5,500/-. When presented, the same was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Notice of demand was issued to the petitioner/accused. It was not personally served on the petitioner. It was returned with the endorsement that though intimation was served, the notice was not claimed. The complainant came to court scrupulously observing the statutory time table. He examined himself as PW1. Exts.P1 to P4 were marked. The accused examined a witness as DW1. No documents were marked. 2. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that all ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act have been proved. The trial court imposed and the appellate court confirmed a sentence of S.I for a period of one year. No direction was issued to pay compensation or fine. Crl.R.P No.595 of 2000 2 3. 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 submits that the petitioner only prays that the sentence imposed may be modified and reduced. No other contentions are raised. 4. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am satisfied that the verdict of guilty and conviction do not warrant any interference. In the absence of challenge on any specific grounds, it is unnecessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail. 5. Coming to the question of sentence, I find merit 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 it is not necessary to impose any deterrent substantive sentence of imprisonment on the petitioner. Leniency can be shown on the question of sentence, but it will have to zealously ensure that the complainant, who has been compelled to fight three rounds of legal battle by now and to wait from 1994, is adequately compensated. Crl.R.P No.595 of 2000 3 6. 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.11,000/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand only) as compensation and in default to undergo S.I for a period of 2 months. 7. The petitioner shall have time till 27.06.2009 to appear before the learned Magistrate and to serve the modified sentence hereby imposed. The modified sentence shall not be executed till that date. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have almost agreed on a settlement and in these circumstances the petitioner may be permitted to pay the compensation amount directly to the respondent. If the petitioner and the respondent satisfy the learned Magistrate that the compensation amount has been paid by then, it is made clear that the default sentence need not be executed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-