K. Ramanna, J.—This revision is filed by the complainant against the Order of conviction and sentence passed in C. C. No.1105/95 on the file of the Addl.. JMFC, Mudigere, for inadequacy of sentence.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.

3. During the course of the argument the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent herein has issued a cheque for Rs. 75,000/- dated 11-10-1994, which was issued for re-payment of the debt, which came to be dishonoured. Therefore, he filed a private complaint. After recording the evidence the trial Court had come to the conclusion that the respondent-accused was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, though convicted but sentenced him to pay fine only. It is contended that under the law the petitioner is entitled to receive the compensation and the Court is empowered to impose fine double the cheque amount therefore, in the instant case, the trial Court has not properly appreciated the main object of enactment of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short “N. I. Act”). Therefore, the Order under revision is liable to be modified by enhancing the fine amount.

4. In support of this contention the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that filing of a suit for recovery of amount covered under the cheque is different aspect and there is no bar for the complainant to file f civil suit for the cheque amount before the civil Court. Further it is contended that the trial Court is not justified in imposing minimum sentence of Rs. 5,000/- on the ground that the suit has ended

in compromise for a total sum of Rs. 85,000/- which is totally incorrect and illegal and which calls for interference.

5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since the revision petitioner had already filed a suit and the said suit was ended in compromise before the Lok Adalath for Rs. 84,000/- and the respondent has already paid the decretal amount and, therefore, the trial Court was right in recording its finding in imposing fine of Rs. 5,000/- which does not call for interference. In support of the contention the learned Counsel for the respondent relied on a decision reported in the case of Anil Kumar Haritwal v. Alka Gupta1 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:

“Where the dispute settled between the parties, held, conviction and sentence of the defaulter set aside, in view of the fact that S. 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act allows compounding of the offence.”

In the instant case the respondent has not entered into any compromise with the revision petitioner under Section 147 of the N. I. Act. But he entered into a compromise with the revision petitioner in O. S. 13/98 and paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on the date of compromise decree before the Lok Adalath and he has paid the balance of Rs. 54,000/- subsequently in civil litigation. Hence the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision cannot be made applicable to the case on hand.

6. I have carefully gone through the Judgment under challenge and also the arguments advanced by both parties. It is an undisputed fact that the revision petitioner has issued a cheque for Rs. 75,000/-. Since he failed to repay the same, therefore, the petitioner presented the cheque for encashment which came to be dishonoured, therefore, he filed a private complaint before the JMFC, Mudigere. After considering the entire evidence placed on record by the petitioner the trial Court had come to a conclusion that the respondent has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. But while imposing sentence the trial court has forgotten to hold that the initiation of criminal proceeding for dishonour of Cheque is a separate proceeding and filing of the suit for recovery of the cheque amount is a separate one. In the instant case, the revision petitioner, who is a retired employee, has been made to knock the doors