IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 218 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRA.212/2004 of V ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.1642/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ALUVA .................... REVN. PETITIONER:APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------ G.UNNIKRISHNAN, THOTTUVATHALA BHAVAN, AMBALAPPUZHA.P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SREEKUMAR, S/O.KRIHSNANKUTTY, RESIDING AT OORAPPARAMBIL VEEDU, KARUMALLOOR, PARAVUR TALUK. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P.No. 218 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th 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.30,000/-. It bears the date 05.03.2000. The petitioner now faces a sentence of S.I for a period of three months. There is a further direction to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo s.i for a period of 3 months. 2. Signature in the cheque is admitted. Notice of demand was returned unclaimed. The complainant was not cross examined. No explanation whatsoever is offered for the issue of cheque. No defence evidence is also adduced. 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. 4. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned concurrent judgments. The Revision Petition has been admitted Crl.R.P.No. 218 of 2008 2 condoning the delay of 1048 days without imposing any conditions. 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. 5. Having gone through the impugned concurrent judgments, I am satisfied that, that is an informed 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. 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. 218 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 three rounds of legal battle by now and to wait for the past about 7 years for the redressal of his 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 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C to pay an amount of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees Forty five 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. Crl.R.P.No. 218 of 2008 4 9. The petitioner shall have time till 15.03.08 to raise and pay the compensation amount and avoid the default sentence. 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/- Crl.R.P.No. 218 of 2008 5