JUDGMENT

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.-

Leave granted. On a complaint filed by the appellant herein, Smt Kaushalya Devi Massand, the respondent herein. Roopkishore, was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore (M.P.) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in Criminal Case No. 445 of 2000.

2. Having regard to the fact that the respondent had deposited a sum of 3,50,000, as against the cheque amounting to 2 lakhs, the learned Magistrate was of the view that sentence of fine only would suffice without awarding any jail sentence. The learned Magistrate, accordingly, sentenced the respondent to pay a fine of 4 lakhs which was to be paid to the appellant herein as compensation. However, the learned Magistrate also indicated that a sum of 3,50,000 had already been deposited and that the balance amounting to 50,000 was to be deposited by the respondent and' if deposited, the same was to be paid to the appellant. On failure to deposit the said amount of 50,000, the respondent would have to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment.

3. The order of the learned Magistrate was challenged by the respondent before the learned Third Upper Sessions Judge, Indore (M.P.), by way of Criminal Revision No. 593 of 2006. The learned Sessions Judge while confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the Magistrate, remanded the matter to the learned Magistrate for a fresh hearing on the question of quantum of sentence and to pass an order accordingly.

4. The said orders of the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Magistrate dated 27-12-2007 and 23-2-2007, respectively are the subject-matter of the present appeal. Incidentally, the appeal has been filed by the complainant, Smt Kaushalya Devi Massand, who is being represented by her son, Shri Harish Massand, on the strength of a power of attorney' executed by the appellant in his favour.

5. Shri Massand submitted that the offence was in respect of three cheques dated 1-5-1997, 15-5-1997 and 30-5-1997, for Rs. l lakh each. The said cheques were issued in lieu of the payment of consideration against the sale of property. On presentation of the cheques to the bank, the same were dishonoured on the ground of insufficient funds. Subsequently, in lieu of the three cheques which had been dishonoured, four cheques drawn, on Central Bank of India, Sanyogitaganj Branch, Indore, were issued by the respondent to the appellant, namely, (i) Cheque No. 0121035 dated 15-6-1999 for Rs. 50,000; (ii) Cheque No. 0121036 dated 15-7-1999 for Rs. 1 lakh; (iii) Cheque No. 0121037 dated 15-8-1999 for Rs. 50,000; and (iv) Cheque No. 0121038 dated 15-9-1999 for Rs. l lakh. The said cheques presented to the Bank were again dishonoured due to insufficient funds resulting in the filing of the complaint, as indicated hereinabove:

6. Shri Massand submitted that since 1997, the appellant, an old widowed lady, was subjected to unnecessary harassment for the last 14 years and the respondent had not even been punished with a jail sentence for a day, despite the severe inconvenience and trouble which the appellant had to suffer on account of the dishonesty of the respondent and the fraud perpetrated by him.

7. Shri Massand pointed out that while not sentencing the respondent to a jail sentence despite the enormity of the offence committed by the respondent, ironically the Magistrate sentenced the respondent to two months' rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of Rs. 50,000 towards the fine/compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs. Shri Massand also took us through the order-sheet of the case before the learned Magistrate to show the manner in which the proceedings had been prolonged by the respondent.

8. Shri Massand submitted that in order to maintain the faith of the people in the judicial system, it was only proper that a jail sentence be awarded to the respondent to serve as a deterrent to others involved in similar activities.

9. Mr Shakil Ahmad Syed, learned advocate, who appeared for the respondent, submitted that afte