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. 3203 of 2007() ------------------------------ CRA.682/2005 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.1401/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT ACCUSED ----------------------------------- GOPI,S/O. KUMARAN,AGED 55 YEARS, GOPI VILASOM,ENATHY PO., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.P.P.BIJU RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. P.D.BHASHI,PULLAMPATHARAYIL HOUSE, ENATHY P.O., VAIKOM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH SRI.K.S.SURENDRAN 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.3203 of 2007 ------------------------------------- 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.77,500/-. It bears the date 01.11.2003. The petitioner now faces a sentence of imprisonment till rising of Court. There is a further direction to the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,13,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo S.I for a period of three months. 2. Signature in the cheque is admitted. The complainant was not cross examined at all. Notice of demand though duly received and acknowledged did not evoke any response. No defence evidence was adduced. An application was filed to recall the complainant. That petition was allowed on terms. But such terms were not complied with. That petition was eventually dismissed. 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. Crl.R.P.No.3203 of 2007 2 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 only prays that the direction to pay an amount of Rs.1,13,000/- as compensation when the cheque is only for an amount of Rs.77,500/- is harsh, excessive and unjust. The compensation amount may be suitably and reasonably reduced. This is the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have gone through the impugned concurrent judgments. I find the verdict of guilty and conviction to be absolutely justified and unexceptionable in law. 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 direction regarding payment of compensation, the learned counsel for respondent/complainant only submits that appropriate and just direction may be issued. I take note of the fact that the cheque was for an amount of Rs.77,500/-. The complainant has been compelled to fight 3 rounds of unnecessary legal battle and to wait from November, Crl.R.P.No.3203 of 2007 3 2003 for the redressal of his genuine grievances. The complaint deserves to be compensated adequately and justly. But I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the direction to pay an amount of Rs.1,13,000/- is, at any rate, excessive. 7. Taking all the relevant circumstances into account, I am satisfied that the direction to pay an amount of Rs.90,000/- as compensation shall be absolutely fair, just and reasonable. The challenge can succeed only to the above extent. 8. In the result: a) This Crl.R.P is allowed in part; b) The impugned appellate judgment is upheld in all other respects. But the quantum of compensation directed to be paid is reduced from Rs.1,13,000/- to Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety thousand only). 9. The petitioner shall have time till 29.02.08 to raise and pay the compensation amount and avoid the default sentence. The modified sentence hereby imposed shall not be executed till that date. He shall pay the said amount or balance (if any amount has already been deposited) by that date. On or before 01.03.08, 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.3203 of 2007 4