Thomas, J.—Leave granted.

2. Appellant in this case is the complainant before the court of 9th Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. The offence pitted against the respondent was under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In fact there was two complaints arising out of two sets of cheques which were dishonoured by the drawee bank. The trial Magis­trate after holding the respondent guilty of the offence convicted him of the aforesaid offence but sentenced him only to undergo imprison­ment till rising of the court and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in both cases. Apparently the respondent was happy and therefore he did not prefer any appeal. But the complainant/appellant was unhappy and therefore he preferred two revisions before the High Court on the premise that the sentence was grossly inadequate. He contended before the High Court that the trial magistrate should atleast have invoked the provision under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code).

3. However the learned single judge of the High Court of Madras was not inclined to interfere with the sentence passed on the respondent and therefore he dismissed both the revisions. Nonetheles