The High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting manifest illegality or miscarriage of justice, not to re-evaluate evidence or enhance sentences without clear justification.

Present revision has been filed against judgment dated 25.05.2023 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Badnawar in Criminal Appeal No.07/2021 whereby learned Sessions Court partly allowed the appeal by affirming the conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and modified the sentence by reducing the period of sentence from six months R.I to till rising of the Court so also enhanced the compensation amount under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C to Rs.2,05,042/-against the order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in SCNIA No.01/2017 wherein the applicant has been convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced him to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment and compensation of Rs.1,64,000/.

2. Prosecution story in brief is that the respondent who happens to be the nephew of the applicant took cash loan of Rs.1,27,300/- from the applicant and furnished cheque bearing no.49453 dated 04.10.2016 for Rs.1,27,300/- towards repayment. The aforesaid cheque was presented before the Bank, however, the same was returned with memo "Insufficient funds". Applicant sent a legal notice to the respondent which was received by him, but he has not filed any reply nor returned the money to applicant. Applicant filed a private complaint against the respondent for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act, which is registered as SCNIA No.01/2017. Learned trial Court after taking the evidence of both the parties and perusing record convicted the respondent for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo 6 months R.I and to pay compensation of Rs.1,64,000/-.

3. The complainant/revisionist preferred an appeal which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.07/2021 and by judgment dated 25.05.2023 Sessions Judge maintained the conviction and reduced the sentence till rising of Court by enhancing the compensation amount to Rs.2,05,042/- and in default further 3 months R.I. Hence being aggrieved the applicant has preferred this revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that appellate Court has committed grave error in modifying the sentence awarded by learned trial Court against the established principles of law. Section 138 of N.I. Act prescribes punishment of 2 years and fine of double of the cheque amount, which may be awarded as compensation to the complainant, but learned appellate Court has reduced the sentence of the respondent till rising of the which cannot be considered as an adequate punishment in any manner.

4. Learned counsel relied upon the Judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of H. Pukhraj V.D Parasmal reported as (2015)17 SCC 368 wherein it has been held that punishment awarded to the accused under Section 138 of N.I. Act must be adequate and consonance of crime committed by him. Therefore, counsel prayed that this revision may be kindly allowed and the sentence so also the compensation awarded by learned Appellate Court in Cr.A. No. 07/2021 be modified and enhanced.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the compensation amount along with interest has been paid to the applicant hence he supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of this revision.

6. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be just and proper.

7. However, the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court has not committed any error in appreciation of evidence available on record. Further, it is found that both the courts below considered the evidence available on record and correctly found that the case is well supported by the evidence placed on record.

8 . Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the question for determination is as to whether this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction can enhance the sentence and compensation amount as prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner?

9. From the face of record, it is an adm