IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4535 of 2007() ------------------------------ CRA.370/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANTS/ACCUSED ------------------------------------ JITH, AGED 42, S/O VANNERI BHASKARAN, THRITHALLUR DESOM, VATANAPPILLY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. JAYASANKAR, S/O ACHUTHAPARAMBIL AYYAPPAKUTTY, VATANAPILLY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 4535 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th 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. 2. The cheque is for an amount of Rs. 40,000/- It bears the date 7.6.2003. The petitioner, after the modification of the sentence by the appellate court, now faces a sentence of S.I. for a period of 10 days. There is a further direction to pay the actual cheque amount of Rs.40,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of three months. 3. Before the learned Magistrate there was the evidence of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6. No defence evidence whatsoever was adduced. The courts below, in these circumstances, concurrently came to the conclusion that the complainant has succeeded in establishing all ingredients of the offence punishable Crl.R.P.No. 4535 of 2007 2 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 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 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 and the petitioner may be given some further time to raise the amount and avoid the default sentence. In the absence of challenge on any specific ground against the verdict of guilty and conviction, I am satisfied that it is not necessary for me to advert to the facts in any greater detail in this order. I am satisfied that the verdict of guilty and conviction are absolutely justified and unassailable. 5. 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 in Anilkumar v. Shammy (2002 (3) KLT 852). I am not satisfied that there are any compelling reasons which would Crl.R.P.No. 4535 of 2007 3 justify or warrant imposition of any deterrent substantive sentence of imprisonment on the petitioner. 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 wait from 2003 and to fight two rounds of legal battle for the redressal of his grievances. The challenge can succeed only to the above extent. 6. In the nature of the relief which I propose to grant, it is not necessary to wait for issue and return of notice on the respondent. 7. In the result: (a) This revision petition 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. © 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 Crl.R.P.No. 4535 of 2007 4 of Rs.47,500/- as compensation and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of three months. 8. The petitioner shall have time till 29.2.2008 to pay the amount and avoid the default sentence. The modified sentence shall not be executed till that date. On or before 1.3.2008. On or before 1.3.2008 the petitioner shall appear, and his sureties shall produce him, before the learned Magistrate for execution of the modified sentence. (R. BASANT) Judge tm