IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl Rev Pet No. 326 of 2007() 1. SHEEJA, VIGNESWAR (PONNARA), ... Petitioner Vs 1. S.KRISHNAN, ... Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, For Petitioner :SRI.B.S.SIVAJI For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT Dated :22/01/2007 O R D E R R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. 326 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2007 ORDER
This revision petition is directed against a concurrent
verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution
under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act.
2. The cheque is for an amount of Rs.50,000/-. It bears
the date 16/1/02. The complainant had examined himself as
P.W.1 and proved Exts.P1 to P6. The accused did not adduce
any defence evidence. No reply was given to the notice of
demand, though duly received and acknowledged.
3. The courts below came to the conclusion that the
complainant has succeeded in establishing all the ingredients
of the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act.
Accordingly, the courts below proceeded to pass the
impugned concurrent judgments.
4. 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
Crl.R.P.NO. OF 326 2007 -: 2 :-
does not strain to assail the verdict of guilty, conviction and
sentence on merits. I reckon that as an informed and fair stand
taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not
necessary to advert to the facts in any greater detail in the
absence of any contention. Suffice it to say that I am satisfied
that the verdict of guilty and conviction are absolutely justified.
5. Coming to the question of sentence, the petitioner now
faces a sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six
months and to pay the actual cheque amount of Rs.50,000/- as
compensation and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for
a period of two months. I have already adverted to the
principles governing imposition of sentence in a prosecution
under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act in the decision reported in
Anilkumar v. Shammy (2002 (3) K.L.T. 852). I am not satisfied
that there are any compelling circumstances available in this
case which would justify the imposition of any deterrent
substantive sentence of imprisonment on the petitioner.
Leniency can be shown on the question of sentence. But at the
same time the courts cannot ignore the plight of the
respondent/complainant who has been compelled to fight two
Crl.R.P.NO. OF 326 2007 -: 3 :-
rounds of legal battle and wait from 16/1/02 for the redressal of
his grievance. An appropriate direction for payment of
compensation coupled with a lenient substantive sentence of
imprisonment shall meet the ends of justice, I am satisfied. The
challenge in this revision petition can succeed only to the above
6. In the nature of the relief which I propose to grant, I am
satisfied that it is not necessary to wait for issue and return of
notice to the respondent/complainant in this revision petition.
7. In the result:
(a) This Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.
(b) The impugned verdict of guilty and conviction of the
petitioner under Sec.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 under Sec.357(3) of the Cr.P.C.
to pay an amount of Rs.65,000/- as compensation and in default,
to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. If
realised, the compensation amount shall be released to the
Crl.R.P.NO. OF 326 2007 -: 4 :-
8. The petitioner shall appear before the learned
Magistrate on or before 22/3/07 to serve the modified sentence.
The sentence shall not be executed till that date. If the
petitioner does not appear as directed, the learned Magistrate
shall thereafter take steps to execute the modified sentence.
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
P.S. to Judge