Judgment :- This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 2. The cheque is for an amount of Rs. 2,29,939/-. It bears the date 31.3.2004. The petitioner now faces a sentence of S.I. for a period of five months. There is also a direction to pay an amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo S.I. for a further period of one month. 3. The signature in the cheque is admitted. The notice of demand, though addressed in the correct address of the petitioner and duly acknowledged, did not admittedly evoke any response. The complainant examined PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to P4 series. The accused did not adduce any evidence - oral or documentary. Though there was no response to the notice of demand, in the course of the trial an attempt was made to advance a contention that the cheque was not issued for the due discharge of any legally enforcible debt/liability, but was issued only as security when the parties entered into transactions. The blank signed cheque handed over by the petitioner to the complainant was being misutilised by the complainant, it was contended. 4. The courts below, in these circumstances, 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 challenge which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner raises various contentions. First of all it is contended that the cheque was not issued for the due discharge of any legally enforcible debt/liability, but only as security. On this aspect we have the evidence of PW1. The evidence of PW1 is eminently supported by his ability to produce Ext.P2 cheque, which is admittedly drawn on a cheque leaf issued to the petitioner by his bank to operate his account and which undisputedly bears his signature. Even admittedly, after the date of the cheque, portions of the amount have been paid. This also supports the allegation that there were transactions between the parties and amounts were outstanding and were payable on the date of issue of the cheque by the petitioner to the complainant. 6. Even admittedly, after the date of the cheque, portions of the amount have been paid. This also supports the allegation that there were transactions between the parties and amounts were outstanding and were payable on the date of issue of the cheque by the petitioner to the complainant. 6. The petitioner has no specific case as to what exactly is the amount payable on the date of the cheque or on the date of the complaint. A contention was raised that an amount of Rs. 1 lakh had been paid subsequent to the date of the cheque. The complainant did not dispute that fact. Receipt of an amount of Rs.1 lakh is not disputed by the complainant. The courts below took this fact into consideration and directed payment of a compensation realistically taking into consideration the payment of Rs. 1 lakh which was admittedly made after the date of the cheque. 7. The evidence of PW1 is further supported eminently by the absence of response on the part of the petitioner when he received the notice of demand. The notice of demand, it is seen, is addressed to the petitioner in the address, Proprietor, Mahe Hardwares and Paints, Mahe, Palackal. The acknowledgment card is produced as Ext.P4(b), which shows that the notice of demand has been acknowledged with the signature of someone with the seal of the said establishment affixed thereon. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his anxiety to down play the importance of the absence of response to the notice of demand, attempted to build up a contention that the signature in the acknowledgment card is not that of the petitioner. He requests that a comparison may be undertaken of the signature in the cheque vis-a-vis the signature in Ext.P4(b). I find absolutely no merit in this request. The very consistent case of the complainant is that the notice of demand was duly served on the petitioner. He had made assertions to that effect when he was in the witness stand. Significantly, when PW1 was in the witness stand there is not a whisper of a challenge against the receipt of notice under Ext.P4(b). Belatedly, at this stage, it cannot lie in the mouth of the petitioner that there has been no proper notice of demand, a semblance of such a version having not been raised when PW1 was in the witness stand. Belatedly, at this stage, it cannot lie in the mouth of the petitioner that there has been no proper notice of demand, a semblance of such a version having not been raised when PW1 was in the witness stand. It is evident that the belated attempt is without bonafides. The contention that notice has not been properly served and the absence of response to the notice of demand is irrelevant are in these circumstances are of no merit at all. 8. PW1 had admitted that there was payment of an amount of Rs. 1 lakh after the cheque was issued. Specific dates were also suggested. An amount of Rs.50,000/- on 30.4.2004, Rs.30,000/- on 13.7.04 and Rs.20,000/- on 15.9.2004 are the payments suggested. PW1 in the witness box could not make specific admissions or denial about the dates and the quantum of payments made. But he unambiguously admitted that an amount of Rs. 1 lakh has been received. Of course, he had stated that such payments were received after the complaint. Even going by the suggestions made to PW1, the payments were made on 30.4.04, 13.7.04 and 15.9.2004 and one of such payment is after the date of the complaint, i.e. 18.7.04. It is significant that the petitioner has no case that any further amounts have been paid. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner conveniently submits that in as much as there was an admission that an amount of Rs.1 lakh was paid subsequent to the filing of the complaint, he is not obliged to produce any document to substantiate that version. I find absolutely no merit in the said contention. The contention, it occurs to me, is a contention for the sake of contention without any bonafides. Before the appellate court or before this court the petitioner has not chosen to produce any voucher to suggest that there actually was payment of Rs. 2 lakhs and not Rs. 1 lakh after the date of the cheque. In these circumstances the contention that PW1 had made an admission of Rs. 1 lakh subsequent to the filing of the case and that the petitioner had paid Rs. 1 lakh after the notice of demand but before the filing of the complaint is not substantiated at all. 1 lakh after the date of the cheque. In these circumstances the contention that PW1 had made an admission of Rs. 1 lakh subsequent to the filing of the case and that the petitioner had paid Rs. 1 lakh after the notice of demand but before the filing of the complaint is not substantiated at all. The emptiness and hollowness of the contention and the fact that the petitioner is trying to drag on the proceedings is clear from the total lack of any attempt to produce before this court or before the appellate court any voucher or document to show that an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs and not Rs. 1 lakh as admitted by PW1 had been paid after the date of the cheque. This contention must also in these circumstances fall to the ground. 10. No other contentions are raised on merits. The counsel impassionately appeals that a further opportunity may be granted to the petitioner by a remand of the case to substantiate his case. He points out that the petitioner wanted to examine himself as a witness. Such request was not accepted. The cross examination of PW1 as also the nature of the response on receipt of the notice of demand convincingly show that the petitioner had no worthwhile defence to advance. No proper application under Section 315 Cr.P.C. was filed. The accused never filed an application for permission under Section 315 Cr.P.C. under his own signature. In these circumstances I am of the opinion that the trial court had committed no error in dismissing the application filed by the counsel for the petitioner under Section 315 Cr.P.C. 11. The counsel then prays that leniency may be shown on the question of sentence. I find merit in the prayer for leniency. 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 in Anilkumar v. Shammy (2002 (3) KLT 852). In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any compelling reasons which can persuade this court to insist on imposition of any deterrent substantive sentence of imprisonment on the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any compelling reasons which can persuade this court to insist on imposition of any deterrent substantive sentence of imprisonment on the petitioner. Leniency can be shown on the question of sentence, but subject to the compulsion of ensuring adequate and just compensation to the victim/complainant, who has been compelled to wait from 2004 and to fight two rounds of legal battle for the redressal of his genuine grievances. The challenge can succeed only to the above extent. 12. In the nature of the relief which I propose to grant, it is not necessary to wait for issue and return of notice to the respondent. 13. In the result: (a) This 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, he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of court. He is further directed under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. to pay an amount of Rs.1,45,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty five thousand only) as compensation and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of three months. If realised the entire amount shall be released to the complainant. 14. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate on or before 30.11.2006 to serve the modified sentence hereby imposed. The sentence shall not be executed till that date. If the petitioner does not so appear, the learned Magistrate shall thereafter proceed to take necessary steps to execute the modified sentence hereby imposed. Needless to say, credit shall be given to amounts, if any deposited before the trial court during the pendency of the proceedings. Such amounts shall be released to the complainant forthwith.