U.D. Salvi, J.— Heard. Perused records.

2. Adequacy of sentence imposed by III Jt. Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Shrirampur on the respondent No. 1/accused for having committed an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1872 is in question in the present criminal revision application.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Suryawanshi for the applicant/complainant makes a statement that the respondent No. 1/accused has not preferred any appeal against the judgment and order of his conviction under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1872 passed by III Jt. judicial Magistrate (First Class), Shrirampur in STC No. 522/1995 on 10/12/1996. Order dated 29/09/2011 reveals that the respondent No.1/ accused was served with the notice of this Criminal Revision Application and he had filed his appearance through his advocate. However, none appears on behalf of the respondent No.1/ accused when the matter is called out for hearing today.

4. Perusal of the judgment delivered by the learned trial Court reveals that the respondent No. 1/accused had borrowed hand loan of Rs.25,000/- and the cheque which was issued by him towards repayment of the said hand loan, was dishonoured by the Bank on which it was drawn for the reason of insufficiency of fund in the account of the respondent No. II accused. It is further revealed that the applicant/complainant demanded the said amount by issuing a notice in writing within five days of the return of the said cheque and called upon the respondent No.1 / accused to make payment of the said amount within 15 days. However, the respondent No.1, accused despite having received the said notice on 011 04/995 i.e. the next day of issuance of the notice. failed and neglected to make the payment demanded. These facts gave rise to the complaint STC No. 522/1995 and ultimately ended in the conviction of the respondent No.1/accused under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the basis of the evidence led before the learned trial Court. Learned trial Court upon conviction of the respondent No.1/ accused sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of the payment of the fine amount, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. An amount of Rs. 1,000/- was ordered to be paid to the complainant on realization of the fine amount. This sentence, according to the applicant/complainant is grossly inadequate in words of learned advocate for the applicant/complainant “flee-bite sentence”.

5. Learned advocate for the applicant/complainant submitted that the amount covered by the cheque in question remained unpaid even after the complaint was lodged against the respondent No.1/accused in the trial Court and leaving the respondent No. 1/accused on a fine of Rs. 3,000/. and ordering payment of Rs.1.000 from the amount of fine recovered, amounted to extending lip sympathy overlooking the object of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1872. In support of his submission, he relied on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Suganthi Suresh Kumar’s case Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan.1 According to him, the sentence imposed is-not based on the facts revealed before the trial Court and, therefore, it needs to be corrected by passing appropriate order in the present criminal revision application.

6. Pertinent observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court at para 12 of the judgment delivered in Suganthi Suresh Kumar’s case are re-produced herein below.

“12. The total amount covered by the cheques involved in the present two case was Rs 4,50,000/-. There is no case for the respondent that the said amount had been paid either during the pendency of the eases before the trial Court or revision before the High Court or this Court. If the amounts had been paid to the complainant there perhaps would have been justification for imposing a flee-bite sentence as had been chosen by the trial court. But in a case where the amount covered by the cheque remained unpai