Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


D/MADHU v. STATE OF KERALA - Crl Rev Pet No. 2966 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 605 (29 August 2006)


Crl Rev Pet No. 2966 of 2006()

... Petitioner


... Respondent

2. INDIRAKUTTY P.J., T.C.5/68,

For Petitioner :SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :29/08/2006



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P.No. 2966 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 29th day of August, 2006


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.

2. The cheque is for an amount of Rs. 1.2 lakhs. It bears the date 3.4.1999. The petitioner now faces a sentence of S.I. for a period of one year. There is also a direction to pay the actual cheque amount of Rs.1.2 lakhs along with cost of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo S.I. for a further period of thirty days.

3. The signature in the cheque is admitted. There was a dispute about the manner in which the date in the cheque was entered. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to P8. The accused did not adduce any evidence - oral or documentary.

4. The courts below, in these circumstances, concurrently came to the conclusion that the complainant has succeeded in Crl.R.P.No. 2966 of 2006 2 establishing all ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Accordingly they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments.

5. 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 submits that leniency may be shown on the question of sentence. The substantive sentence of imprisonment is grossly and perversely excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of the offence proved, submits the counsel. I am satisfied that the verdict of guilty and conviction are absolutely justified and unexceptionable. In the absence of challenge on any specific ground against the verdict of guilty and conviction, I am satisfied that it is not necessary for me to advert to the facts in any greater detail in this order.

6. 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 the decision in Anilkumar v. Shammy Crl.R.P.No. 2966 of 2006 3 (2002 (3) KLT 852). In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any compelling reasons which can persuade this court to insist on imposition of any deterrent substantive sentence of imprisonment on the petitioner. Leniency can be shown on the question of sentence, but subject to the compulsion of ensuring adequate and just compensation to the victim/complainant, who has been compelled to wait from 1999 and to fight two rounds of legal battle for the redressal of his genuine grievances. 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 revision petition 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. ) 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 Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. to pay an amount of Rs.1,45,000/- Crl.R.P.No. 2966 of 2006 4 (Rupees one lakh forty five thousand only) as compensation and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of three months. If realised the entire amount shall be released to the complainant.

9. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate on or before 15.11.2006 to serve the modified sentence hereby imposed. The sentence shall not be executed till that date. If the petitioner does not so appear, the learned Magistrate shall thereafter proceed to take necessary steps to execute the modified sentence hereby imposed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.