Judgment 1. A complaint was laid against the respondent herein under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on the following allegations: The accused borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000 from the complainant and issued a post dated cheque, dated 27.3.1993, payable on Periyar District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Modak-kurchi Branch. When the cheque was presented for collection, it was returned on the ground of insufficiency of funds. To the notice issued by the complainant, no reply was sent, Hence, the complaint. 2. On behalf of the complainant, three witnesses were examined, including the complainant and Exs.P-1 to P-8 were marked. On the side of the defence, a document has been marked as Ex.D-1. The Judicial Magistrate, No.III, Erode, found the accused guilty under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and held that the period of custody of the accused viz., 6 days shall be the sentence. The complainant has preferred this revision, questioning the inadequacy of the sentence imposed by the Magistrate. 3. The point that arises for determination is whether the punishment imposed by the Magistrate is inadequate. 4. The point:The respondent viz., the accused who was served with notice on this revision, did not choose to appear and therefore, a counsel from among the penal of Legal Aid Committee was appointed to represent the respondent/ accused. The accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000. Her defence before the court, when she was questioned was that she is not liable to pay and amount and that a blank cheque with her signature was lost, which led to a wrong trial against her. When the accused failed to respond to the summons of the court and only after issuance of a non-bailable warrant alone, she was arrested and produced before the court. The accused had not stated before the court that she has no means. Nor has spoken to any extenuating circumstances in her statement, when examined under Sec.313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 5. The learned Judicial Magistrate has stated that he is taking into account the financial status of the accused. But, as to the financial status, no evidence, was let in. An accused, who could borrow Rs.60,000 must be definitely having some financial status. Learned Judicial Magistrate has also not chosen to hear the complainant before imposing the sentence. Without any basis, the Judicial Magistrate has chosen to hold that the complainant has no financial status. But, as to the financial status, no evidence, was let in. An accused, who could borrow Rs.60,000 must be definitely having some financial status. Learned Judicial Magistrate has also not chosen to hear the complainant before imposing the sentence. Without any basis, the Judicial Magistrate has chosen to hold that the complainant has no financial status. Such a plea was not made by her anywhere in her statement. Having handed over the cheque, she says that a complaint has been given regarding the same. But a copy of the complaint is not produced. She would deny the liability, whereas she has not chosen to send any reply to the notice issued by the complainant. She did not choose to appear before the court in spite of summons, and therefore, she was apprehended in execution of a non-bailable warrant. 6. In the above circumstances, the casual manner in which the matter has been treated by the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Erode, is to say, the least improper. It is not the observation of the Judicial Magistrate that the trial of the case was prolonged on account of the attitude of the complainant. On the other hand, the case has been pending from the year 1993 arid could be disposed of only in the year, 1997. Perhaps, it is a case, where the accused had played truant for sometime, When a statute indicate that certain punishments to be imposed, unless there are compelling circumstances, warranting a lenient view, the court should not adopt leniency towards the same. The very object of introducing this provision is to bring about honesty and credibility in such transactions. If a person, who has committed such an offence, is to be treated so lightly and let off with a flea bite’ sentence, then the purpose of enactment will be defeated. Provisions regarding punishment should not be made an empty formality, unless there are strong and pursuasive grounds, a lighter view cannot be taken in such cases, A punishment of imprisonment for six days in a case involving issuance of a cheque for a sum of Rs.60,000 is nothing but mockery of justice. Justice should not only be done to the accused but also to the complainant. 7. It is to be pointed out that the complainant is the aggrieved party here. Justice should not only be done to the accused but also to the complainant. 7. It is to be pointed out that the complainant is the aggrieved party here. This is not a case that calls for a compassionate approach or a liberal view of the matter. The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Erode, had committed a grave error in letting off the accused with such a very light punishment. Therefore, it is a fit case that calls for an enhanced sentence. The object of sentence must be reformative and deterrent. If sentences are to be imposed in this light hearted fashion, then there will be only offences galore. It is the duty of the court to interpret the provisions of law and implement the same with a view to advance the cause of justice. But, herein this case, the sentence imposed by the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Erode, is no sentence at all, in the eye of law. 8. Thereafter, in such circumstances, the revision is accepted, while confirming the conviction the sentence imposed by the lower court are modified, and the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 and in default to undergo imprisonment for two months. The lower court shall take necessary steps to realise fine amount, in accordance with law.