IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 234 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRA.598/2006 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK COURT-I) ALAPPUZHA CC.16/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(MOBILE),ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------- P.K.RAGHUVARAN, AGED 52, S/O KUTTAPPAN, PADISSERY VEEDU, THUMPOLI P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------------------- 1. C.C.BINU DAS, SINDHU SADANAM, THUMPOLI P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 234 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st 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.1,60,000/- It bears the date 10.12.2004. The petitioner now faces the sentence of S.I. for a period of six months. There is a further direction to pay an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of two months. 2. Signature in the cheque is admitted. Handing over of the cheque is also admitted. The notice of demand, though duly received and acknowledged, did not evoke any response. No defence evidence whatsoever was adduced. 3. The courts below, in these circumstances, concurrently came to the conclusion that the complainant has succeeded in establishing all ingredients of the offence punishable Crl.R.P.No. 234 of 2008 2 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Accordingly they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments. 4. 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 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 and the petitioner may be given some further time to raise and pay the compensation amount and thus avoid the default sentence. Having gone through the impugned judgment I reckon that as an informed, fair and reasonable stand taken by the learned counsel. In the absence of challenge, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail in this order. 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 in Anilkumar v. Shammy (2002 (3) KLT 852). Crl.R.P.No. 234 of 2008 3 I am not satisfied that there are any compelling reasons which would justify or warrant imposition of any deterrent substantive sentence of imprisonment on the petitioner. Leniency can be shown on the question of sentence, but subject only to the compulsion of ensuring that the complainant, who has been compelled to wait from December, 2004 and to fight two rounds of unnecessary legal battle for the redressal of his grievances is adequately compensated. The challenge in this revision petition can succeed only to the above extent. 6. In the nature of the relief which I propose to grant, it is not necessary to wait for issue and return of notice on the respondent. 7. In the result: (a) This revision petition 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. © 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. Crl.R.P.No. 234 of 2008 4 He is further directed under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. to pay an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of three months. 8. The petitioner shall have time till 15.3.2008 to raise and pay the compensation amount and thus avoid the default sentence. The modified sentence shall not be executed till that date. On or before 17.3.2008 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 tm