These cases have arisen out of the judgment and order dated 12.3.2014 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Crl. Appeal No. 177/2013 whereby the learned court affirmed the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in C.R. Case No. 5602C/2006 with modification of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Magistrate. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while maintaining the sentence of simple imprisonment of 2 (two) months passed by the learned Magistrate, reduced the amount of compensation from Rs. 16 lacs to Rs. 10 lacs.

2. Heard learned counsels appearing for both the parties and perused the impugned judgment of the court below.

3. The factual aspects of the case, briefly stated, are that the appellant of the present appeal, Himani Das alleging commission of offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments’ Act (in short “ N.I. Act), filed a complaint against the respondent, Sunder Buragohain alleging therein that she had business relation with the accused respondent. The respondent against his existing liability issued two cheques bearing number 835977 dated 28.4.2006 for Rs. 4 lacs and cheque bearing number 835978 dated 28.4.2006 for Rs. 4 lacs drawn at Standard Chartered Bank, GNB Road, Ambari, Guwahati in favour of the complainant/appellant. When the appellant presented the cheques through her banker for encashment, those were dishonoured due to insufficiency of fund in the account of the respondent. The appellant then issued statutory notice to the respondent demanding payment of the cheque amount, but there was no response. Having no other alternative, the appellant, as complainant, filed the complaint case u/s 138 of the N.I. Act before the concerned Magistrate.

4. During the trial both the parties to the case examined themselves as witnesses and produced documents. The learned trial Magistrate on conclusion of the trial convicted the respondent u/s 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to imprisonment and to pay compensation as stated above. Aggrieved by the judgment, the respondent preferred appeal before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge but the judgment of the trial court was affirmed in appeal. However, the quantum of compensation was reduced from Rs. 16 lacs to Rs. 10 lacs. Being aggrieved, the respondent of the appeal filed this appeal before this Court assailing the order of reduction in the quantum of compensation by the appellate court whereas the appellant has preferred the revision challenging the judgment of the appellate court.

5. Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant (complainant) submits that the learned appellate court has committed manifest error by reducing the quantum of compensation from Rs. 16 lacs to Rs. 10 lacs. Mr. Bhuyan submits that the case relates to dishonour of a cheque in the year 2006 and due to prolonged litigation the complainant has sustained tremendous loss and injury and there was no justification for the appellate Court to reduce the quantum of compensation. The accused respondent although admitted his liability, have not yet paid a single penny to the complainant/appellant and the learned trial court has rightly awarded compensation of Rs. 16 lacs in favour of the complainant. Mr. Bhuyan also advanced his argument in connection with the revision preferred by the accused petitioner before this Court and submitted that there was concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the courts below which calls for no interference from this Court. Mr. Bhuyan further submits that the revisional power of the High Court cannot be exercised as a second appellate power and minute and in-depth re-examination of the entire evidence is uncalled for.

6. Mr. I. Choudhury, learned counsel for the revision petitioner assailing the judgment of the appellate court and the trial court submits that the learned courts below failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and the evidence adduced