ORDER :

1. Leave granted. The Appellant is the complainant. The Respondent is the accused. For the disposal of this case, it is not necessary to give details of the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that a cheque in the sum of Rs. 6,19,488/- (Rupees six lakh nineteen thousand four hundred and eighty eight only) was issued by the Respondent to the Appellant. The cheque is dated 11.04.2003. When it was presented for encashment on the same day, it bounced. The Appellant filed complaint on 27.05.2003. The trial was conducted by the Judicial Magistrate No. V, Coimbatore. Learned Magistrate by order dated 05.09.2005 convicted the Respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ("the NI Act") and sentenced him to undergo six months imprisonment and also to pay fine of Rs. 4,000/- in default, to undergo three months further imprisonment. Being aggrieved by this judgment, the Respondent preferred an appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Coimbatore. The learned Additional District Judge confirmed the conviction. However, the Additional District Judge modified the order of sentence. He reduced the sentence to three weeks. Being aggrieved by that, the Appellant approached the High Court making grievance about the inadequacy of the sentence. The High Court, by the impugned order confirmed the conviction. It, however, modified the order of sentence. The High Court directed the Respondent either to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) to the Appellant or to undergo imprisonment for two months. The operative part of the order could be quoted:

"5. From the foregoing discussions and perusing the judgment of both courts, this Court is of the view that the quantum of punishment is on the lower side, since the cheque amount a sum of Rs. 6,19,488/- is involved and the dishonour of the case had been proved below the courts, therefore, this Court is inclined to modify the adequate punishment is such this Court impose a sentence on the accused that he has to undergo two months simple imprisonment to pay compensation a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The accused either has to pay the compensation amount or to undergo two months simple imprisonment as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. This court directs the learned judicial Magistrate No. V, Coimbatore, to issue bailable warrant and secure him forthwith in order to undergo two months simple imprisonment. If the accused deposits the said compensation amount a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- into the credit of C.C. No. 461 of 2003, on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. V, Coimbatore, before being remanded into the Judicial Custody then the accused will be set at liberty and the sentence by two months simple imprisonment would not be operated against the accused. If the accused remits the said compensation and it is open to the complainant to withdraw the said amount from the Trial Court along with a copy of this order. If the accused pays the said compensation amount, the fine amount shall be returned to him."

2. We have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant at some length. Though notice is served on the Respondent, he is not appearing either in person or through a lawyer. This Court, therefore, appointed Mrs. Nanita Sharma as amicus curiae. We have heard learned amicus curiae also.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant severally assailed the impugned judgment. He submitted that the impugned order may be set aside and the Appellant may be adequately punished and substantial compensation amount may be directed to be paid to the Appellant. Learned counsel for the Appellant urged that this Court should ask the Respondent to pay double the cheque amount to the Appellant. Learned amicus curiae, on the other hand, submitted that no interference is necessary with the impugned order.

4. In Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan, 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) 502 : (2002) 2 SCC 420, this Court was considering the propriety of inadequate sentence imposed