ORDER

1. This revision petition under section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the appeal judgment dated 14.6.2022 (Annexure-A/2) passed by XXI Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.328/2019 (Surendra Agrawal v. Sher Nagrik Sakh Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Jabalpur) whereby learned appellate Court has partly affirmed the judgment of conviction under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 passed in Criminal Complaint No. SC NIA-20310/2013 (Sher Nagrik Sakh Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Jabalpur v. Surendra Agrawal), but has reduced the sentence by modifying it from one year R.I. (as awarded by learned J.M.F.C.) to a period of 30 days R.I., but has affirmed the order of grant of compensation under section 357(3) of Cr.P.C.

2. As per the prosecution story, applicant/accused had taken loan form respondent / complainant but he did not repay the loan. On 28.2.2013, an amount of Rs.6,34,585/- alongwith interest was to be paid by the applicant/accused to the Bank and for the same, notice was issued to him against pending dues. Applicant/accused had issued cheque No.-042501 dated 6.3.2013 for an amount of Rs.6,34,585/-. When cheque was presented in the Bank, same was received dishonoured with a memo showing insufficient fund in the account of the applicant/accused. Legal notice was issued as per the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Even after 15 days of service of notice, applicant failed to pay cheque amount, hence, complaint for commission of offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Act, 1881 was filed.

3. After evidence of the parties, learned J.M.F.C. convicted and sentenced the applicant/accused as stated above for commission of offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and awarded one year R.I. and directed the applicant/accused to pay compensation of Rs.9,10,000/- already deposited by the applicant in the account of complainant.

4. Appeal was preferred before the Court of Sessions, learned XXI Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur by the impugned judgment dated 14.6.2022 affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of payment of compensation, but reduced the sentence from one year R.I. to a period of 30 days R.I.

5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicant recorded under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by the Courts below. It is also submitted that applicant has already deposited the entire compensation amount with the Bank and Court, therefore, jail sentence of a period of 30 days as awarded/reduced by appellate Court may be removed or applicant may be sentenced for some lessor sentence as entire compensation amount has already been deposited.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has admitted that he has no objection if the jail sentence of the applicant is reduced to some lessor period as applicant/accused has already deposited the entire compensation amount with the Bank and Court.

7. I have perused the impugned appeal judgment passed by the learned XXI Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur.

8. It is admitted that applicant has already deposited entire compensation amount with the Bank and Court. Applicant/accused has already paid entire amount but is in jail since 19.4.2023. He has already suffered more than 13 days incarceration in jail. Having taking into consideration the custodial period already undergone by the applicant/accused in jail and the facts & circumstances of the case, I am of the view that ends of justice will meet if jail sentence awarded to the applicant is removed and the applicant/accused is sentenced to till rising of the Court with compensation amount awarded by the Courts below.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, the finding of conviction recorded by the Courts below is hereby confirmed, but the jail sentence of a period of 30 days R.I. awarded to the applicant by the learned XXI Additional Sess