HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1686 of 2004 O R D E R: The complainant in CC No.245 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy, filed the present revision seeking enhancement of fine imposed against the sole accused. The sole accused allegedly committed the offence u/sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the Act’). 2. The complainant examined himself as PW-1 and examined two other witnesses to establish the issuance and bouncing of the cheque. It is the case of the complainant that the accused borrowed Rs.50,000/- by way of a hand loan and issued Ex.P1-cheque on 02.07.2001 as payment for the hand loan borrowed by the accused. The cheque was presented on 25.9.2001 by the complainant. It bounced on 29.9.2001 on the ground that there were no sufficient funds. The complainant thereafter issued a legal notice on 9.10.2001 under Ex.P4. The amounts covered by the cheque however, remained unpaid. The complainant consequently, laid CC No.245 of 2001. 3. It is not as though the above mentioned facts are the allegations of the complainant. These are the facts that are established by the complainant before the trial court, viz., that the cheque was issued by the accused towards discharge of the subsisting loan and that the cheque bounced when it was presented were the admitted and established facts before the trial court. The trial court indeed convicted the accused for the offence u/Sec.138 r/w.148 of the Act. The complainant ho\wever, laid the present revision. The grouse of Sri V.Anil Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the complainant is that the trial court ought to have imposed fine covered by the cheque or double the amount covered by the cheque and that the trial court unfortunately, imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- only and ordered payment of Rs.3,000/- out of the said amount as compensation to the complainant. He placed reliance upon Sec.138 of the Act. Sec.138 of the Act envisages that in the event of the dishonour of cheque for insufficient funds and the like cause, the person, who issued the cheque, shall be deemed to have committed an offence and becomes punishable with imprisonment or with fine upto an extent of twice the amount covered by the cheque amount. Indeed, Sec.138 of the Act does not ordain that ones the offence u/Sec.138 of the Act is established, the court should impose the fine equivalent to the amount covered by the cheque or double the amount covered by the cheque. Sec.138 of the Act merely envisages that the fine could go upto twice the amount covered by the cheque. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner however placed reliance upon Maganlal Jain Vs. Abhijeet Kumar Dash[1] where the Orissa High Court relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs. Jagdeeshan[2]. The Supreme Court considered that the sentence for the offence u/sec.138 of the Act should be of such a nature as to give proper effect to the object of the legislation. The object of Sec.138 of the Act is quite evident that the payee should be able to recover the amount for which the cheque was drawn. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that where the cheque under Ex-P1 was for Rs.50,000/-, the trial court ought to have imposed a fine of Rs.50,000/- or more and ought to have directed refund of the same to the petitioner. 5. Sri V.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the accused on the other hand, contended that the fine imposed by the trial court is just and proper and it does not require any interference. 6. As already pointed out, the Supreme Court considered that the sentence imposed should be with a view to achieve the purpose of Sec.138 of the Act. In the present case, if the fine to the extent of the amount covered by the cheque at least is imposed with a direction that the same would be payable to the petitioner by way of compensation, the purpose of filing of the case would stand satisfied. I consider that the imposition of the fine in this case therefore, should match the amount for which the cheque was issued. The amount of Rs.5,000/- as imposed by the trial court is not just and proper where the cheque was issued for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. The amount of fine imposed against the accused therefore, deserves to be revised and enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. 7. It may be recalled that the cheque was issued on 2.7.2001 and more than 10 years have elapsed from the date of issuance of the cheque. The petitioner has not realized the fruits of the cheque so far. If interest is added for the amount covered by the cheque, it would be more than double the amount covered by the cheque. At the same time, I consider that in view of the length of time that elapsed from the date of the bouncing of the cheque till today, the ends of justice would be met if fine of Rs.50,000/- is imposed apart from fine of Rs.5,000/- already imposed by the trial court. 8. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The fine of Rs.5,000/- imposed by the trial court is enhanced to Rs.55,000/- out of which Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to the petitioner as compensation towards payment by the cheque. In default, of payment of the fine, the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. _____________ K.G.SHANKAR,J Dt. 08.7.2011 Mjl/* [1] 2004 Crl.L.J.2415 [2] 2002 Cri LJ 1003 : (AIR2002 SC 681)