Cr. Rev. 1299 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr. Rev. 1299 of 2010 Date of decision:1.10.2010 Malkiat Singh Petitioner vs. M/S Phool Chand Ram Kumar Respondent Present: Mr. BS Sidhu, Advocate. Mr. Ak Khunger, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. With the consent of the parties, the revision petition has been taken up for final hearing. The petitioner has been convicted u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( for short 'the Act') by the courts below to undergo sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year besides paying a compensation for a sum of ` 4.50 lacs u/s 357 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dalip S. Dhanukar vs Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd & Anr 2007(2) RCR (Criminal) 636, has laid down that Section 357(3) Cr.P.C, does not impose any limitation on power of court to award compensation but such jurisdiction cannot be exercised at the whims and caprice of a judge. It was specifically held in the said judgment that amount of compensation sought to be imposed, must be reasonable and not arbitrary; before issuing a direction to pay compensation, the capacity of accused to pay the same must be judged and an enquiry in this behalf, though of summary natur,e may be necessary; court cannot direct a party to pay unreasonable amount in exercise of power under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. In the present case, the complainant is a Commission Agent Cr. Rev. 1299 of 2010 2 and the relationship of the petitioner with the complainant is a fiduciary relationship. The sentence of imprisonment awarded by the courts below cannot be interfered on merits in exercise of revisional jurisdiction but the legality and propriety of the order granting compensation of ` 4.50 lacs equivalent to the amount of the cheque gives an impression that as if the suit for recovery has been decreed in favour of a party without affixation of court fee and without filing a suit for recovery. The Award of compensation seems to be unreasonable and arbitrary. The objective of provisions of Section 138 of the Act is not to convert the criminal proceedings u/s 138 of the Act into a suit for recovery. The punishment of imprisonment for one year seems to be sufficient enough to penalise the petitioner for his inability to discharge the part of the liability towards the complainant. Upholding the conviction and sentence of imprisonment for one year, the sentence of payment of compensation of ` 4.50 lacs is hereby set aside. The compensation is reduced to a sum of ` 25,000/-. It will be open to the complainant to recover the same in accordance with law. The amount of compensation has been assessed with an objective to compensate the complainant for the harassment and financial liability incurred during litigation. The revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms. October 1 ,2010 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE