The petitioner is the complainant in ST No.849/2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in which the 1st respondent herein has been arrayed as accused therein.

2. Ext.P1 dishonoured cheque dated 15.2.2005 is for Rs.2,00,000/-. The trial court as per the judgment rendered on 24.10.2007 has convicted the 1st respondent herein for the above said offence and has sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- which is disbursable as compensation to the complainant in terms of Section 357(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The trial court refused to award the cheque amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation in terms of Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case in Dilip v. Kotak Mahindra Company Ltd., reported in 2007(2) KLT 488 (SC). To impugn the conviction and sentence, the accused had preferred Criminal Appeal No.952/2007 before the appellate sessions court concerned (Court of Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram). The appellate court as per the judgment rendered on 20.7.2010 has confirmed the conviction and modified the substantive sentence of three months simple imprisonment by reducing the same to imprisonment till the rising of the court and also confirmed the fine amount of Rs.15,000/- with the default sentence clause of two months simple imprisonment. The petitioner (complainant) has preferred the instant revision petition challenging the judgment of the appellate court to the extent it has reduced the substantive sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court, instead of three months’ simple imprisonment, and also praying for enhancing the fine/compensation amount.

3. Heard Sri. S. Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner (complainant), Sri. R. Rajasekharan Pillai, learned counsel appearing for R-1 (accused) and Sri. Saigi Jacob Paletty, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-2 State.

4. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the trial court concerned (Judicial I Class Magistrate Court-VII, Thiruvananthapuram) has furnished report dated 12.10.2017 addressed to the Registry of this Court, wherein it has been stated that on verification of the case records it is seen that the accused had remitted the fine amount of Rs.15,000/- before the trial court on 22.9.2010. It is not in dispute that the accused has already undergone the substantive sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court as per the modified order of the appellate court.

5. The main contention urged by Sri. S. Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner (complainant) is to the effect that the appellate court was seriously erred in reducing the substantive sentence of three months’ simple imprisonment to imprisonment till the rising of the court and in not enhancing the compensation amount.

6. The Apex Court in the decisions in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal, reported in AIR (2010) SC 1907 and in Kausalya Devi Massand v. Roopkishore, reported in AIR (2011) SC 2566 etc. has held that the offence of dishonour of cheque as conceived in Section 138 of the NI Act, is essentially a civil wrong, which has been given criminal overtones by the legislative intervention by the amendments made to the provisions of the NI Act and the gravity of such an offence cannot be equated with an offence under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and that ordinarily an appropriate sentence of fine disbursable as compensation would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, unless there are extraordinary circumstances, which warrant the imposition of a substantive sentence, sentence of fine would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the appellate court cannot be said to h