Conviction under Section 138 upheld; revisional jurisdiction allows modification of sentence focusing on compensation.

ORDER

The above Criminal Revision Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“To allow this Revision Petition, set aside the judgments of the courts below and acquit the petitioner from the charge. ” [SIC]

2. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner by the trial court and the appellate court. The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.494/1996 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta. It is a prosecution initiated against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881 (for short 'NI Act'). The learned Magistrate after a full fledged trial found that the petitioner is guilty under of the NI Act and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,65,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs sixty five thousand only). In default of payment of the fine amount, the petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, an appeal is filed before the appellate court. The appellate court, after re-appreciating the evidence, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Hence, this Criminal Revision Petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence invoking the powers of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. Unless there is illegality, irregularity and impropriety, this Court need not interfere with the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence. This Court anxiously considered the impugned judgments and the contentions of the Revision petitioner. I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing to interfere with the conviction imposed on the petitioner. The trial court and the appellate court considered the entire evidence and thereafter found that the petitioner was guilty under Section 138 of the NI Act. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the conviction imposed under of the NI Act.

5. What remains is the sentence imposed on the petitioner. The sentence is imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,65,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs sixty five thousand only) with a default sentence. Admittedly, it is a money transaction which leads to the prosecution. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that a substantive sentence of imprisonment is not necessary. The same can be set aside.

Therefore, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part in the following manner:

1. The conviction imposed on the petitioner as per the impugned judgment is confirmed.

2. The sentence imposed on the petitioner as per the impugned judgment is set aside, and the revision petitioner is directed to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay compensation of Rs.2,65,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs sixty five thousand only). In default of payment of compensation, the petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. If the compensation amount is deposited, the same shall be paid to the 1^st respondent under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C.

3. One month time is granted to pay the amount and to serve the sentence. All coercive steps against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance during the above period.

4. If any amount is already deposited before the trial court, the same will be adjusted towards the compensation amount, and the same should be disbursed to the 1^st Respondent in accordance with law.

5. If the compensation amount is directly paid to the complainant, and an affidavit is filed by the complainant to