IMPORTANT POINT
In a conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act where cheque amount was Rs. 1,50,000 a sentence of fine of Rs. 5,000 only was a flee bite and needed to be revised.

K.N. Basha, J.—This revision is preferred by the complainant challenging the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Coimbatore for the enhancement of sentence awarded to the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the judgment of conviction dated 27.4.2003 in C.C. No. 949/97 convicting the respondent accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and imposing only a fine of Rs. 5,000, in default, two months’ simple imprisonment.

2. Mr. R. Asokan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the order under challenge in this revision is presently for the limited purpose for enhancement of the sentence as the learned Magistrate awarded only a very meager sentence in spite of the fact that the cheque amount involved in this matter is Rs.1,50,000 under the cheque Ex. P1 dated 18.4.1997. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the respondent/accused also not challenged the impugned order of conviction. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the respondent is owning a cinema theatre at Koduimidi, Erode District. As such, he is having sufficient funds in the event of directing him to pay some reasonable amount as compensation. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the learned Magistrate has not even imposed any sentence of imprisonment and having chosen to impose only a fine the learned Magistrate ought to have directed to pay some reasonable amount as compensation.

3. Mr. B. Jayaraman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the cheque amount is Rs. 1,50,000 and the learned Magistrate has taken into consideration even the cheque amount and apart from that fact the learned Magistrate also considered the age of the accused at that time as he was aged about 70 years at the time of passing the impugned order in the year 2003. It is submitted that the petitioner as on today must be aged about 74 or 75. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the revision petitioner has not produced any materials to show that the respondent accused is owning a theatre and from the theatre getting substantial income. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable one considering the facts and circumstances and there is no ground made out for enhancement of sentence.

4. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by, either side and also perused the entire materials available on record including the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.

5. A perusal of the materials discloses that the cheque amount involved in this matter is Rs.1,50,000. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the accused/respondent has also not challenged the order of conviction and sentence. As the revision itself is filed only for the specific purpose of seeking the relief of enhancement of compensation, this Court need not go into other aspect of the matter as the same already reached finality in the event of the accused not challenging the impugned conviction and sentence.

6. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the learned Magistrate imposed only a fine of Rs. 5,000 as the accused was aged about 70 years at the time of passing the impugned order. The learned Judge has not assigned any other reason for taking such a lenient view. The fact remains that he has also not imposed any sentence of imprisonment.

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court held in Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan,1 that:

“11. The total amount covered by the cheques involved in the present two cases was Rs. 4,50,000. There is no case for the respondent that the