IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 85 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRA.687/2006 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE FAST TRACK (ADHOC II), KOZHIKODE CC.264/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOYILANDY .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------ ABDUL MAJEED, S/O.KOYAKUTTY HAJEE, AGED 41 TEARSM KUMMAYA PURATH HOUSE, ULLIYERI AMSOM, DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN SRI.R.SUDHISH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------- 1. T.M.GOPINADAN, S/O.KRIHSNAN NAMBIAR, ARATTU THARAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHUPPANAM.P.O, VADAKARA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P.No.85 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th 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.2 lakhs. It bears the date 23.01.2004. The petitioner now faces a sentence of s.i for a period of one year and to pay an amount of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C and in default to undergo s.i for a further period of 4 months. 2. Signature in the cheque is admitted. Notice of demand was duly received and acknowledged and a reply was issued. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to P5. The accused examined himself as DW1. Dws 2 and 3 were also examined on his side. 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. Crl.R.P.No.85 of 2008 2 4. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned concurrent judgments. 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 a deterrent substantive sentence of imprisonment may be avoided. 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. I find no reason to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 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 Crl.R.P.No.85 of 2008 3 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 from 2004 for the redressal of his genuine 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 to pay an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs twenty thousand only) as compensation and in default to undergo S.I for a period of 4 months. If realised the entire amount shall be released to the complainant. Crl.R.P.No.85 of 2008 4 8. The petitioner shall have time till 29.02.08 to make the payment and avoid the default sentence. The impugned sentence shall not be executed till 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.85 of 2008 5