JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondent at length.

2. The Complainant, dissatisfied with the punishment, has impugned the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dondaicha, in STC No.83 of 2003 (Old STCC No.1250 of 1998) dated 04.08.2004.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the accused was a businessman. He has a business selling utensils and a seasonal business selling crackers. The petitioner/complainant has proved the legally enforceable debt. However, while imposing the sentence, the learned Magistrate has imposed disproportionate imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs.1,000/- only against the cheque amount of Rs.10,000/-. He would argue that the respondent had sufficient income. He was very well able to pay at least Rs.10,000/-. He also argued that the Court did not give proper reasons for such leniency, imposing a sentence and penalty less than provided in the law. Referring to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, he would argue that the proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is quasi-civil and quasi-criminal. The said Act guarantees