The offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is primarily a civil wrong, and the object of the provision is compensatory. Courts may enforce orders to pay compensation by imposing a sentence in default.

JUDGMENT

Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J. - The petitioner before this Court filed a petition of complaint against Raju Raheman under Section 138 of the N.I. Act alleging inter alia that Raju Raheman in discharge of his liability and to pay debt, issued an account payee cheque of Rs. 24,000/- vide no. 855091 dated 22nd September, 2006 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Dharmotala Branch in favour of the complainant which was presented and dishonoured for insufficient fund. Demand notice was sent to the accused person in terms of statutory provision but it was not adhered to. Learned Trial Court after considering the evidence on record both oral and documentary was pleased to hold the accused person liable to be convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment till rising of the Court and directed the convict to pay a sum of Rs. 28,000/- in three installments as compensation. The complainant felt aggrieved by the said order of learned Trial Court which according to complainant was inadequate and contrary to the intention of the legislature. Hence filing the criminal revision the complainant is seeking enhancement of sentence.

2. Assailing the impugned order of learned Trial Court Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that admittedly in discharge of his liability the Opposite Party Raju Raheman issued a cheque and he has found guilty by the learned Trial Court for committing an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. He did not prefer any appeal rather accepted the verdict of learned Trial Court but learned Trial Court did not pass a sentence which is condign. Therefore, the impugned order of sentence should be altered.

3. To buttress his argument Mr. Gupta relies upon a judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounced in the case of Suganthi Suresh Kumar vs. Jagdeeshan reported in 2002 (10) SCR 269. According to Mr. Gupta learned Trial Court committed grave error by imposing flee bite sentence which does not give proper effect to the object of legislation. No drawer of the cheque should be allowed to take dishonour of the cheque issued by him light heartedly. The very object of enactment of provision like Section 138 of the Act would stand defeated if the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court remains unaltered particularly when the cheque amount was not paid by the Opposite Party even during the pendency of the proceeding before the learned Trial Court.

4. Refuting such contention of Mr. Gupta, Mr. Swarup Banerjee, learned Counsel representing the Opposite Party No. 2 submits that the Opposite Party is a poor business man who does not have the means to fight the unequal duel with Arun Kumar Jhajharia, the petitioner before this Court. The Opposite Party Raju Raheman did not have the means to pay Rs. 24,000/- in one go and considering his financial capability learned Trial Court was kind enough to grant installment to pay the compensation. According to Mr. Banerjee the Opposite Party paid a sum of Rs. 28,000/- in compliance with the direction of learned Trial Court which has been withdrawn by the petitioner. Therefore, he is estopped from challenging the order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court. It is further adverted by Mr. Banerjee that enhancement of sentence can be considered in a proceeding under Section 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code in an appeal or under proviso to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Revisional application cannot be entertained at the instance of victim or the complainant as the case may be, shall be relegated to prefer the appeal. To buttress his submission Mr. Banerjee relied upon a judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court (unreported) pronounced in Criminal Appeal No. 90-93 of 2022, Joseph Stephen & Ors. vs. Santhanasamy & Ors. According to Mr. Banerjee the proceeding pending before this Court is not maintainable.

5. I have perused the judgement in Joseph Stephen (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said proceeding decided the foll