Sheeja Vigneswar (Ponnara) vs S. Krishnan and Another

R. Basant, J.—This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution u/s 138 of the N.I. Act.

The cheque is for an amount of Rs. 50,000/-. It bears the date as 16.1.2002. 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.

The Courts below came to the conclusion that the complainant has succeeded in establishing all the ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 138 of the N.I. Act. Accordingly, the Courts below proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments.

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 docs not strain to assail the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence on merits. 1 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 arc absolutely justified.

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 u/s 138 of the N.I. Act in the decision reported in Anilkumar v. Shammy (2003) 1 DC 547 : 2002 (3) KLT 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 rounds of legal battle and wait from 16.1.2002 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 extent.

In the nature of the relief which I propose to grant, [am satisfied that it is not necessary to wait for issue and return of notice to the respondent/complainant in this revision petition.

In the result:

(a) This Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.

(b) The impugned verdict of guilty and conviction of the petitioner u/s 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 u/s 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 respondent/complainant.

The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate on or before 22.3.2007 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.