IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2008 / 1ST MAGHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 139 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRA.273/2002 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-III, THALASSERY CC.637/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------- PRADOSH BABY, S/O. ACHUTHAN, AGED 47 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, S.L.T. BUS SERVICE, OLAD KUNNU, AZHIKODE P.O., KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------ 1. M. DINESHAN, S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, ALAKKEEL HOUSE, TALAP, KANNUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Crl. R.P. No. 139 OF 2008 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 21st 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.60,000/-. It bears the date 19.1.1998. The petitioner now faces a sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay the actual cheque amount of Rs.60,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. No default sentence is seen prescribed. 2. 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. Called upon to explain the nature of challenge, which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent judgments, the learned counsel for the Crl.R.P.No.139/08 : 2 : 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. The substantive sentence of imprisonment may be avoided. Reasonable further time may be granted to make the payment of reasonable compensation and avoid the default sentence, it is prayed. 3. Having gone through the impugned concurrent judgments, I am satisfied that, that is an informed, reasonable and fair stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The impugned verdict of guilty and conviction are found to be absolutely reasonable and unexceptionable. In the absence of challenge on any specific grounds, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail. 4. 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 Crl.R.P.No.139/08 : 3 : 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 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 for more than a decade for the redressal of his grievances. The substantive sentence of imprisonment can be reduced. An appropriate default sentence can also be imposed. The jurisdiction competence of this Court to impose a default sentence is none unquestionable and has been well settled by the decisions in Hari Kishan & State of Haryana Vs. Sukhbir Singh [AIR 1988 SC 2127] and Sugandhi Suresh Kumar Vs. Jagdeeshan [AIR 2002 SC 681]. The challenge in this revision petition can succeed only to the above extent. 5. In the nature of the relief which I propose to grant, Crl.R.P.No.139/08 : 4 : 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 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.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. If realised the entire amounts shall be released to the complainant. 7. The petitioner shall have time till 29.2.08 to comply with the directions for payment of compensation. This modified sentence shall not be executed till that day. The petitioner shall appear and his sureties shall produce him Crl.R.P.No.139/08 : 5 : before the learned Magistrate on or before 1.3.08 for execution of the sentence. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks