IMPORTANT POINT
The offense under Sec. 138 of N.I.Act is primarily a civil wrong, and the court has the discretion to impose fines instead of imprisonment, considering the compensatory nature of the offense.

JUDGMENT

1. Assailing the calendar and judgment dtd. 3/4/2007 in C.C.No.163 of 2006 on the file of the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise, Guntur, the petitioner/complainant filed the present criminal revision case under Sec. 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.").

2. The revision case was admitted on 23/11/2007.

3. The shorn of necessary facts are that:

i) Petitioner was running a Timbers shop under the name and style of Jyothi Timbers and he took the shop of respondent/accused on lease for monthly rent of Rs.3, 500.00 and he paid an amount of Rs.15, 000.00 towards advance to the respondent and same shall be returnable by the time of vacating the said shop and that petitioner/complainant said to have paid the rent regularly and no dues regarding the rent of the said shop.

ii) Subsequently, petitioner vacated the said shop and at that time, respondent issued Ex.P.4 cheque, dtd. 30/10/2004 for an amount of Rs.19, 000.00 drawn on Central Bank of India, Guntur towards part payment of the said advance amount. The said cheque was presented for collection on 9/12/2004 in Central Bank of India, Kothapet Branch, Guntur, but the same was returned unpaid with an endorsement due to 'funds insufficient'.

iii) Thereafter, on the request of the respondent/accused, he again presented the said cheque for collection on 18/1/2005, but the same was also returned unpaid due to 'funds insufficient'. On that, he issued Ex.P.7 notice, dtd. 31/1/2005 to the respondent/accused. Even after receipt of notice, since no amount was paid by the respondent/accused, a complaint was filed by the petitioner under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as "N.I.Act") and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.163 of 2005 on the file of the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise, Guntur.

4. Before the trial Court the petitioner/complainant entered into witness box and placed his evidence as P.W.1. The trial Court after recording the evidence of P.W.1 also examined Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Kothapet, Guntur as P.W.2, Bank Manager, Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Guntur as P.W.3 and Deputy Manager, U.T.I. Bank Guntur as P.W.4. On the other hand, the accused did not enter into witness box to rebut the evidence placed by the complainant.

5. Considering the entire material on record, the trial Court came to conclusion that the petitioner/complainant is able to prove his case against the accused and thereby found the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sec. 138 of N.I.Act and while passing sentence, on questioning, the accused stated before the trial Court that he had old aged parents besides son and a daughter, he alone doing business and if he is imprisoned, his family would put into loss and troubles and there is no person to look after the business. Considering the same, the trial Court, in-order to meet the ends of justice, imposed fine of Rs.15, 000.00, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of four (4) months and out of the said fine amount, Rs.5, 000.00 may be given to the complainant/P.W.1 as compensation.

6. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant/P.W.1 preferred the present criminal revision.

7. Sri N.Nagaraju, learned counsel representing Sri A.Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that petitioner/complainant proved the guilt of the accused under Sec. 138 of N.I.Act by placing the relevant material on record; that the trial Court inspite of found guilty of the accused and convicted him under Sec. 255(2) Cr.P.C. erred in imposing only sentence of fine and it ought to have sentenced the respondent for imprisonment for a period as prescribed under the provisions of N.I.Act.

8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is "whether there is any illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by the trial Court, if so, liable to be set aside?"

9. To determ