Judgment :- The 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. 4,43,825. It bears the date 31.8.2000. The first petitioner is directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. The second petitioner now faces a sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay an amount of Rs. 4,45,000/- as compensation. No default sentence is imposed. 3. The signature in the cheque is admitted. That there was an undischarged liability, is also not disputed. Notice of demand was returned unclaimed. The complainant examined PW1 to 3 and proved Exts. P1 to P10. No defence evidence was adduced. 4. The courts below concurrently came to the 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 judgments. 5. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the petitioner wants to mount the impugned concurrent judgment, the Learned counsel for the petitioner does not strain to assail the verdict of guilty and conviction on merits. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently prays that leniency may be shown on the question of sentence. 6. I reckon that as an informed and fair stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner the verdict of guilty and conviction are found to be absolutely justified and unexceptionable in the total absence any challenge on merits. It is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail. It need only be mentioned that Exts. P2 and P3 show clearly that there was a liability and the earlier cheque issued for a larger amount was dishonoured by the bank. It is thereafter that Ext.P5 cheque for a lesser amount happened to be issued by the petitioner to the complainant. 7. Coming to the question of sentence I find the sentence imposed on the first petitioner/company to be absolutely justified. First accused is a company and second accused is the Managing Director who had affixed his signature on behalf of the company in Ext.P5 cheque. I find merit in the prayer for leniency made by the petitioner accused. 7. Coming to the question of sentence I find the sentence imposed on the first petitioner/company to be absolutely justified. First accused is a company and second accused is the Managing Director who had affixed his signature on behalf of the company in Ext.P5 cheque. I find merit in the prayer for leniency made by the petitioner accused. I have already adverted to the principles governing the 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 find no compelling reason in this case to insist on imposition of any substantive sentence of imprisonment on the 2nd petitioner. Leniency can be shown to the petitioner but subject only to the compulsion of ensuring adequate just and fair compensation to the complainant who has been compelled to fight three rounds of legal battle and to wait from 2002 for the redressal of his grievance. A toothless direction under section 357 (3) of the Cr.P.C will not be sufficient to ensure that interests of justice for the complainant. Appropriate substantive sentence, direction for payment of compensation and default sentence can be imposed. The challenge in this revision petition can succeed only to the above extent. 8. 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 on the 2nd petitioner is modified and reduced. In supersession of the sentence imposed on the petitioner by the courts below, he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of court and to pay an amount of Rs. 4,50,000 as compensation and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three weeks. The petitioner shall have time till 30.12.2006 to appear before the learned Magistrate and serve the modified sentence hereby imposed. The sentence shall not be executed till that date. Needless to say the amount if any deposited already shall be given due credit and the same shall be released to the complainant forthwith.