IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 13 OF 2010 MR. KASHINATH NAIK ... Petitioner Versus STATE THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND ANR. ... Respondent Mr. Iftikhar Agha,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate with Mr. S. Karpe, Advocate for respondent no.2 Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 12th July, 2010 P.C. Heard. 2. The only point raised in this revision petition is regarding the sentence. 3. The petitioner/accused was an employee of respondent no.2/complainant. In the course of his employment, it appears that the petitioner had misappropriated certain goods and as a result liability of Rs.3,58,956/- was settled on him. The petitioner paid certain amounts i.e Rs.194,000/- and issued two cheques in sum of Rs. 82,128/- each. One of which is subject matter of this revision petition and regarding other, counsel informs that the trial is still pending before the learned JMFC,Panaji. 4. In this case, the petitioner by order dated 10.8.2009 was convicted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months and to pay compensation of Rs.84,000/- in terms of section 357(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and in default of payment of the said compensation, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The appeal filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Panaji by order dated 30.1.2010. 5. This revision petition came up for hearing before this Court on 5.3.2010 and was adjourned to 9.3.2010. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner was directed to give private notice to the respondent no. 2/complainant. The petitioner alongwith the said private notice sent to the complainant a draft of RS.84,000/- which was compensation awarded by learned JMFC. The said draft for Rs.84,000/- was accepted by the Complainant. Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submits that the said payment was accepted without prejudice to his rights in this revision petition. This court has already observed in its order dated 9.3.2010 that the said draft, was accepted by hte Complainant, albeit wrongly on the ground that the same was ordered by this Court. Thereafter this Court proceeded to suspend the sentence imposed on the accused. 6. Counsel on behalf of the accused no.2/complainant submits that the said payment having been done by the petitioner can at the most exonerate the petitioner from undergoing the imprisonment imposed by the learned JMFC, in default of payment of compensation. Learned senior counsel further submits that this being a revision petition the judgment of the Courts below may not be interfered with in as much as the learned JMFC, has also observed that a lenient view was taken, whilst imposing the sentence. 7. In my view, considering that the petitioner has paid the amount of compensation ordered by the learned JMFC, at the time of filing of this revision petition, the same can be certainly taken as a mitigating circumstance in favour of the petitioner/accused to modify the sentence imposed. Subsequent payment has been considered as justification for reduced sentence ( See AIR 2002 SC 681). Therefore, considering the above facts situation, in my view ends of justice would be met by modifying the sentence imposed upon the accused. In other words, the petitioner is hereby directed to undergo sentence of one day simple imprisonment till rising of the Court under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, considering that the compensation ordered has already been paid to respondent no.2/complainant. 8. In the circumstances, the criminal revision is partly allowed and order of the Courts below modified accordingly. N. A. BRITTO, J. vn