IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3481 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.7/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD CC.142/2007 OF THE JFCM COURT (ADDL. MUNSIFF), KASARAGOD. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------- HARIS ALIAS CHOORI HARIS, S/O.LATE C.H.ABDUL RAHIMAN, RESIDING AT SAJIDA MANZIL, PARAKKATTA, R.D.NAGAR, KUDLU, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS - COMPLAINANT AND STATE -------------------------------------------------- 1. N.N.ABDULLA, S/O.MOHAMMED, RESIDING AT 'DARUL ABRAR', KUNDUVALAPPU, KOYA ROAD, THERUVATH, THALANGARA POST KASARAGOD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAYAKRISHNAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.3481 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2009 ORDER This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty and conviction and a modified setnence imposed by the appellate court in a prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The cheque is for an amount of Rs.58,000/-. The cheque bears the date 2/11/06. Before the court below the complainant was examined as P.W.1 and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that all the ingredients of the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act have been established. Accordingly, they proceeded to pass the impugned verdict of guilty and conviction. The trial court imposed a sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three months. There was a Crl.R.P. No.3481 of 2009 -: 2 :- direction to pay an amount of Rs.58,000/- as compensation and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The appellate court indulgently modified the substantive sentence of imprisonment to simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days. The direction for payment of compensation and default sentence were upheld. 3. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the revision petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent verdict of guilty and conviction, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the revision petitioner does not want to assail the verdict of guilty and conviction. He only prays that a lenient view may be taken on the question of sentence. I am satisfied that it is an informed concession made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in the absence of challebnge, I find it unnecessary to advert to the facts in any greater detail in this order. The concurrent verdict of guilty and conviction do not, in these circumstances, warrant interference, I hold. 4. Coming to the question of sentence, I take note of the circumstance that the respondent/complainant has been compelled to wait for three long years for the redressal of his grievance and has been obliged to fight two rounds of legal Crl.R.P. No.3481 of 2009 -: 3 :- battle before two courts. 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. Shammy [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. He deserves to be compensated satisfactorily. The challenge can succeed only to the above extent. 5. In the nature of the relief which I propose to grant, I am satisfied that it is not necessary to wait for issue and return of notice to the respondent. 6. In the result: (a) This Crl.R.P is allowed in part; (b) The impugned concurrent 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 Crl.R.P. No.3481 of 2009 -: 4 :- courts below, he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of court. He is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.68,000/- (Rupees sixty eight thousand only) as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 40 days. If the amount is deposited, the same shall forthwith be released to the respondent/complainant. 7. This modified sentence shall not be executed till 16/1/2010. On or before that date, the petitioner shall appear and the sureties shall produce him before the learned Magistrate for execution of the modified sentence hereby imposed. After that date, the court below shall be at liberty to execute the modified sentence. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //True Copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.R.P. No.3481 of 2009 -: 5 :- Crl.R.P. No.3481 of 2009 -: 6 :- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/