Judgment H.R.Panwar, J.-By the instant revision under Section 397 CrPC, the accused-petitioner has challenged the Judgment and order impugned dated 12.2002 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur (for short, "the appellate Court") in Criminal Appeal No. 31/2000, by which the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the Judgment and order dated 4.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate (Junior Division) No. 2 (South), Udaipur (for short, "the trial Court") convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, "the Act"). 2. The facts of the case, relevant and necessary for disposal of this revision petition, are that complainant Naresh filed a complaint before the trial Court stating therein that the accused-petitioner purchased colour of Rs. 39, 000/-on credit basis and issued a cheque for this amount. On presentation, the bank dishonoured the cheque on account of insufficiency of amount in the account of the petitioner. A notice was given but despite notice, the petitioner did not pay the aforesaid amount. After hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court, vide Judgment and dated 4.2000, convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Act and awarded sentence of three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default of payment of fine further to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. The trial Court also awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/-to the complainant. The petitioner filed appeal, which has been dismissed by the appellate Court vide impugned Judgment dated 12.2002. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State. No one appeared for the non-petitioner/complainant though served personally. Perused the Judgment s and orders passed by the Courts below and gone through the record. 4. During course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner gave up challenge to the impugned Judgment s convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. However, learned Counsel submits that the petitioner has already undergone the imprisonment awarded by the Court below and, therefore, he has confined his argument challenging the quantum of compensation and submitted that the compensation awarded to the complainant is excessive and ends of justice would be met if the compensation awarded is reduced to the amount of cheque in question. 5. 5. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has already undergone the sentence awarded by the Court below and the fact that the request for reducing the amount of compensation has not been opposed by the complainant, in the interest of justice, I consider it just and proper to reduce the amount of compensation from Rs. 50, 000/-to Rs. 40, 000/-. 6. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence vide Judgment s and orders passed by the Courts below are maintained. However, the amount of compensation awarded by the trial Court is reduced from Rs. 50,000/-to Rs. 40,000/-. The application for suspension of sentence stands disposed of .