JOS versus CHANDRAN

High Court of Kerala

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

JOS v. CHANDRAN - Crl Rev Pet No. 3291 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 816 (20 September 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 3291 of 2006()

1. JOS, S/O.PYLOTH, THARAYIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. CHANDRAN, S/O.DEVAKY AMMA,
... Respondent

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

For Petitioner :SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :20/09/2006

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P.No. 3291 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 20th day of September, 2006

O R D E R

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. 35,000/-. It bears the date 20.5.1999. The petitioner now faces a sentence of S.I. for a period of 15 days and to pay an amount of Rs.40,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo S.I. for a further period of three months. The verdict of guilty and conviction have already become final. The challenge in this revision is only against the sentence imposed.

3. 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 (2002 (3) KLT 852). In the facts and  Crl.R.P.No. 3291 of 2006 2 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 three rounds of legal battle for the redressal of his genuine grievances. The challenge can succeed only to the above extent.

4. 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.

5. 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.50,000/-  Crl.R.P.No. 3291 of 2006 3 (Rupees fifty thousand only) as compensation and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of two months. If realised the entire amount shall be released to the complainant.

6. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate on or before 30.11.2006 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 |

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