THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1070 OF 2002 ORDER: 1 The petitioner herein filed a complaint against the first respondent for the alleged offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act. The trial court took cognizance of the said offence and tried the first respondent in C.C.No.839 of 2000 and having analysed the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the first respondent is guilty of the said offence and accordingly sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. As no amount of compensation was awarded by the court below, the complainant filed the present revision. 2 Brief facts are that the complainant joined as a member of chit group vide Chit No.LT 4 R Chit No.44 for Rs.2,50,000/- run by the first respondent and he paid 48 instalments and became successful bidder in the auction held in October 1999. But the first respondent dodged to pay the amount. Ultimately, after repeated demands, he issued a post-dated cheque bearing No. AN 128046 dated 16.03.2000 on 29.01.2000 for Rs.2,11,950/- drawn on Vysya Bank, Hanamkonda, but when it was presented for collection, the same was dishonoured for the reason ‘funds insufficient’. Then the complainant issued a statutory legal notice to the first respondent and as he did not pay the amount covered under the said cheque, the complainant filed the present complaint. 3 Heard both sides. 4 In my considered view, this revision is misconceived. May be it is true that the court is vested with the power of awarding compensation but it cannot be said that as a matter of rule the court shall award compensation. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt a cheque has been issued and it was bounced and on trial the court below found the accused guilty of the said offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act. But on account of the said finding only the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- Awarding compensation is purely discretion of the court and the court, may, for the reasons to be recorded, award or may not award compensation, but the complainant cannot compel the court to award compensation. That is the reason why this court is of the view that this revision is misconceived. 5 Accordingly this revision is dismissed. --------------- 15.07.2010 Kvsn