Judgment :- This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty conviction and sentence in a prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The cheque is for an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/-. It bears the date 15.09.1998. The petitioner now faces sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of two months. There is a further direction to pay an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 3. The signature in the cheque is admitted. Handing over of the cheque is not disputed. Notice of demand though duly received and acknowledged did not evoke any response. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and proved Exts. P1 to P4. Exts. C1 was also marked. The accused did not adduce any oral evidence. Ext. D1 was marked. The accused attempted to advance a contention that there was no personal termination or liability between him and the complainant and that the cheque was issued by him to the complainant to discharge the liability of another person. This was the only contention urged. 4. The courts below in these circumstances came to the concurrent conclusion that the complainant has succeeded in establishing all ingredients of the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act. Accordingly, they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgment. 5. Arguments have been heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner only reiterates the contention that there was no brivity between the complainant and the accused. This contention cannot obviously be accepted in law. It is by now trite that the cheque issued by the drawer to the payee for discharging the liability of another person to the payee does always fall within the sweep of Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The contention urged, even if accepted in toto, cannot help the petitioner to claim absolution from liability. The stipulations in Exts.P1/D1 agreement cannot help the petitioner to claim absolution from liability. No other contention are raised on merits. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays leniency. I find merit in that prayer. I have already adverted to the principles governing imposition of sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in the decision reported in Anilkumar v. Shammy (2002 (3) K.L.T. 852). No other contention are raised on merits. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays leniency. I find merit in that prayer. I have already adverted to the principles governing imposition of sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in the decision reported in Anilkumar v. Shammy (2002 (3) K.L.T. 852). I do not, in the facts and circumstances of the case, find any compelling reason to justify imposition of any deterrent substantive sentence of imprisonment on the petitioner. Leniency can be shown to the petitioner but subject only to the compulsion of ensuring just and fair compensation to the complainant who has been compelled to fight three rounds of unnecessary legal battle and wait from 1998 for redressal of his legitimate grievance. The challenge raised in these revision petition can succeed only to the above extent. 7. In the result (a) This Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (b) The impugned verdict of guilty and conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act are upheld. (c) But the sentence imposed is modified and reduced. In supersession of the sentence imposed on the petitioner by the courts below, the petitioner is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of court. He is further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Sec. 357(3) of the Cr. P.C. and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. If realised, the entire amount shall be released to the complainant. 8. The petitioner shall have time till 30.11.2006 to appear before the learned Magistrate and serve the modified sentence. If he does not appear before the learned Magistrate on or before 30.11.2006 the learned Magistrate shall thereafter proceed to execute the modified sentence hereby imposed. Needless to say credit shall be given to amounts if any already deposited and such amount shall forthwith be released to the complainant/respondent herein.