Sheeja vs S.Krishnan on 22 January, 2007

Kerala High Court
Sheeja vs S.Krishnan on 22 January, 2007




Crl Rev Pet No. 326 of 2007()

                      ...  Petitioner


                       ...       Respondent


                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


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.




//true copy//

P.S. to Judge

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information