The compensatory aspect is paramount in Section 138 cases, and trial courts must ensure adequate compensation to complainants while exercising discretion in sentencing.

JUDGMENT :

N.S. Shekhawat, J.

The petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the impugned judgment dated 09.01.2025 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda and judgment and order dated 25.10.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda, whereby, the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, she would further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. However, no compensation has been awarded to the respondent/complainant in the present case.

2. The brief facts, as highlighted in the complaint before the trial Court were that petitioner and her husband had close family relations with the respondent/complainant and out of need of money for the business purposes, petitioner, being Sole Prop. of M/s. Matharu Agro Industries, borrowed a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- in cash from the respondent about six months ago in the presence of Desa Singh son of Jawala Singh and Balwinder Singh son of Pal Singh, residents of village Dialpura, Distt. Bathinda and at the time of borrowing the said amount, petitioner had agreed to repay the said amount to the respondent within the period of six months and also issued a post dated cheque No.030622 dated 02.04.2015 for a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- in favour of the respondent from her account maintained by the petitioner with State bank of Patiala, Goniana Mandi in the presence of aforesaid witnesses and at the time of issuance of cheque in question, petitioner had assured the respondent that the said cheque will be honoured as and when the same is presented for encashment on the due date. Bonafidely believing the assurance of the petitioner, respondent accepted the said cheque and since the accused did not repay the said amount of Rs.19,00,000/- to respondent within the period of six months, as such the respondent, after informing the petitioner, presented the said cheque in his account with HDFC Bank, Goniana for encashment and the banker of the respondent further sent the said cheque to banker of the petitioner for clearance but the said cheque remained dishonoured and the same had been returned by the banker of the petitioner to the banker of the respondent along with cheque returning memo dated 03.04.2015 with remarks ‘Account Closed’. After the receipt of the dishonoured cheque and memo, respondent got issued a legal notice dated 15.04.2015 posted on 17.04.2015 upon the petitioner through his counsel intimating the petitioner about the dishonour of the cheque and recalling to make the payment but the petitioner failed to make the payment of dishonoured cheque.

3. After completion of the trial, the petitioner was held guilty for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. However, while awarding the sentence, the petitioner was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years, but was directed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- only and in default of payment of fine, she would further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months only and no compensation was awarded to the respondent. The petitioner/accused filed an appeal before the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Bathinda and the appellate Court/Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, upheld the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by