IMPORTANT POINT
A Medical Doctor of good repute would not fall in a felony.

A.H. Joshi, J.— Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. The respondent No.1 is the complainant in STC No. 2821/2000 before the 5th Judicial Magistrate F.C. Dhule. The applicant in Criminal Revision Application No.83/2010 is the original accused. He is applicant in present criminal revision. He is E.N.T. Surgeon and is running his clinic at Malegaon, Dist. Nasik.

3. The complainant had lodged a complaint was under Section 138 of the N. I. Act towards dishonour of cheque issued by the accused and failure in making the payment by the accused inspite of notice. The Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to suffer SI for 2 months and to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.55,000.

4. The revision applicant preferred an appeal before the Ad hoc Additional Sessions JudgeI, Dhule against his conviction. The appeal was dismissed. Hence the accused has approached this Court, challenging the judgment passed by the Appellate Court by filing Cri. Rev. No.83/2010.

5. The complainant is aggrieved as the sentence is not adequate and therefore has preferred Cri. Rev. No. 134/2010.

6. Heard both learned Advocates. Perused record annexed to the applications.

7. The submission of the accused in summary is as follows: He is not a hardcore criminal. Though there was some transaction, exact liability was not proved by the complainant. The remedy under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, is quasi criminal. Since the accused had deposited the amount of cheque alongwith amount of damages, i.e. total of Rs.55,000, a lenient view needs to be taken.

8. On the other hand, the complainant says that: The compensation is to the tune of Rs.5,000 only. This amount is thoroughly inadequate. The offence cannot be left unpunished.

9. The learned advocate for the accused has expressed that the accused repents the lapse on his part and he would pay additional compensation of Rs.10,000 within 30 days from today.

10. Learned advocate Mr. Suryawanshi, on the other hand, submits that the compensation amount should be double the amount of cheque.

11. It is seen that the parties had civil transaction. The cheque was issued, however, it was not honoured. It is also seen that a bonafide dispute existed a Medical Doctor of good repute would not fall in a felony.

12. This Court has considered the repentance and remorse that is expressed before this Court and that the accused has voluntarily shown willingness to pay Rs. 10,000 as an additional compensation. Therefore, Court considers that this gesture, though late, may be considered as an act of purging the lapse and the orders of sentence, if modified shall meet the ends of justice.

13. Insofar as the revision application by the complainant is concerned, it is a chance petition filed as a reflex to the petition by the accused. It was filed only after the appeal by accused had failed and the accused had approached this Court. Therefore, the revision application by the complainant does not deserve any indulgence.

14. In the result, the order of sentence is modified as follows:

(A) The accused shall deposit Rs.l0,000 in the Trial Court on or before 31.1.2013 and file a pursis in this Court alongwith the deposit receipt and affidavit on or before 8th February 2013 by serving a copy on the Advocate for the complainant, appearing in this Court.

(B) The complainant shall be free to withdraw the amount.

(C) In case applicant accused deposits the amount of additional compensation of Rs.10,000 in Trial Court on or before 31.1.2013, the substantive sentence of imprisonment rendered in STC No.2821/2000 of the Court of 5th Judicial Magistrate F.C. Dhule shall stand modified to imprisonment till rising of the Court and be treated as undergone.

(D) In the event, the compliance by way of deposit of Rs.l0,000 as undertaken and directed is not made, the order of conviction and sentence challenged in this revision application, shall revive and shall be liable to be acted upon.

(E) Revision application No.134/2010 is dis