Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 33563
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J
C A ANTO @ ANTAPAPAN – Appellant
Versus
S YESUDASAN AUSWARYA NIVAS – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 1629/2006
The court can modify sentencing based on the circumstances of the offender while upholding the conviction under the N.I. Act.
Headnote:
Compensation - Criminal Procedure - N.I. Act 138 - The court confirmed the conviction under Section 138, reducing the original compensation and altering the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of court, affecting both the nature and amount of penal consequences.
Fact of the Case:
The revision petitioner was convicted under section 138 of the N.I. Act for non-payment of a cheque and sentenced to three months' imprisonment plus a fine. An appeal reduced compensation but confirmed the conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the petitioner did not contest the conviction but sought leniency in sentencing due to business failure. It allowed for reduced punishment and increased compensation in alignment with justice.
Issues: Whether to alter the sentence while maintaining the conviction given the petitioner's claim of business failure?
Ratio Decidendi: The court balanced the need for punishment with the petitioner's circumstances, allowing for a more lenient sentence while still emphasizing accountability.
Final Decision: The sentence is modified to imprisonment till court rises and a fine of Rs. 5,000, with a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000.
O R D E R
The Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ambalappuzha, in C.C.No.462/2002 found the revision petitioner guilty for offence under section 138 of the N.I.Act, convicted and sentenced to undergo simple for three months and to pay Rs.1,36,000/- as compensation to the 2nd respondent/complainant with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months.
2. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner preferred Crl.A.No.475/2004 before the Sessions Judge, Alappuzha. The Additional Sessions Judge, Alappuzha, while confirming the conviction and the substantive sentence, reduced the compensation to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal, this revision petition is preferred.
3. Today when the revision petition came up for hearing, Sri.Achutha Kylas, the learned counsel representing : 2:
the revision petitioner, would submit that the revision petitioner is not assailing the conviction and that sentence alone is assailed. The submission is recorded. According to the learned counsel, because of the failure in business, the revision petitioner could not discharge the liability and that now he is prepared to discharge the liability. Therefore, he sought for a lenient sentence. I find merit in the submission and that a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of court and a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a direction to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation to the 2nd respondent would meet the ends of justice.
In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part.
While confirming the conviction, the sentence is reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand). The revision petitioner shall further pay Rs.1,50,000/- (one lakh fifty thousand) as compensation to the 2nd respondent. In default of non payment of fine and compensation, the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month and five months respectively. The revision petitioner is granted three months time to remit the fine and compensation. The amount, if any, deposited shall : 3:
be given credit to. The trial court shall see the execution of sentence and report compliance.
