IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1776 of 2006() ------------------------------ CRA.445/2004 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT-II, MAVELIKKARA CC.321/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, HARIPAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- EDWARD @ MONKUNJU, S/O.ANTONY, AGED 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT KODIVEETTIL HOUSE, KANJIRAMCHIRA.P.O, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SARASAN SRI.M.V.BAIJU RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE ---------------------------------- 1. SHAJI, S/O.PODIYAN, KONTHAMPARAMBIL VEEDU, PANOOR MURI, THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Crl.R.P. No. 1776 OF 2006 B ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 9th day of January, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in two prosecutions both under Section 138 of the N.I Act and both initiated by the same complainant against the same accused. Though two separate complaints are seen filed, it is seen that the case was disposed of by a common judgment. Appeals were also disposed of by a common judgment, it is seen. A common sentence has been imposed also and it is found that a common revision petition is also filed and entertained by this court. The technical inadequacy notwithstanding, I am proceeding to dispose of this Crl.R.P. now reckoning the same as one common order. 2. The prosecution relates to two cheques for Rs.61,400/- and Rs.49,808/-. The cheques are dated 17.5.03 and 19.5.03. The total amount due is Rs.1,11,208/-. CRRP.1776/06 : 2 : Prosecutions were initiated by the complainant who died during the pendency of the proceedings. Before the learned Magistrate, there was only the evidence of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P10 on the part of the complainant. Exts.C1 and C2 documents were marked as court exhibits. The courts below had come to the conclusion that the complainant had succeeded in establishing all ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act in respect of both cheques. Accordingly, the courts below proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments. The petitioner now faces a common sentence of imprisonment for one year and to pay an amount of Rs.1,15,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 3. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge, which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner CRRP.1776/06 : 3 : 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. 4. The impugned judgments have been perused by me. I find the verdict of guilty and conviction is absolutely justified. The same do not warrant any interference at all. In the absence of challenge on any specific grounds, it is not necessary to advert to the facts in any greater detail in this order. 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 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 imprisonment. Leniency can be shown on the question of sentence, but subject only to the compulsion of ensuring CRRP.1776/06 : 4 : 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 2003 for the redressal of his grievances. He deserves to be compensated satisfactorily. 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 to the respondent. 7. 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.1,30,000/- (Rupees one lakh thirty thousand only) as CRRP.1776/06 : 5 : compensation and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 8. The petitioner shall have time till 29.2.08 to comply with the directions for payment of compensation. This modified sentence shall not be executed till that day. The petitioner shall appear and her sureties shall produce her before the learned Magistrate on or before 1.3.08 for execution of the sentence. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks