M. D. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant-original opponent has preferred this Revision Application with a prayer to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 18th February, 2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court no. 9, Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision application No. 274 of 2007 whereby the learned Judge while allowing the application remanded the matter to the learned trial Magistrate for deciding the question of quantum of punishment. ( 2 ) THE short facts are that the present-appellant-accused and the present respondent No. 1-complainant were working in the Ahmedabad Municipal corporation. The present appellant-accused was running two firms, in the name and style of Ami Xerox and Hetal Xerox. The present appellant-accused also floated various schemes like Dhanlaxmi deposit, bajaj Scooter scheme and also concuted credit society. The present respondent became a member of the said scheme by paying the amount of deposit for which the present appellant-accused passed receipts and also issued four cheques of the date of maturity of the deposits. Upon deposit of three cheques by the respondent in his account No. 13525 of Canara Bank, maninagar Branch, they returned dishonoured and when the present respondent (complainant) approached the present appellant-accused he said that he was in a helpless and pathetic condition but assured the present respondent that the fourth cheque will be honoured. However, when the present respondent presented the said fourth cheque No. 375533 dated 15-3-2004 for Rs. 7540/-, the same was also dishonoured with the endorsement "account closed" and came back with advice memo dated 21-7-2004. The respondent, thereafter served notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the present appellant-accused did not make payment of the said amount whereupon the respondent lodged complaint in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, court No. 15, under Section 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 5978 of 2004. Process was issued against the present appellant-accused who pleaded not guilty to the charge. The learned Magistrate recorded the further statement of the present appellant-accused under Section 313 of the criminal Procedure Code and after hearing both the parties held the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act, by judgment and order dated 16-5-2007, imposed sentence till rising of the Court and order that the appellant the present appellant will pay Rs. 9050/- as compensation to the respondent, in default of payment of compensation simple imprisonment for one month. ( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved and being dissatisfied by the said judgment and order dated 16-5-2007 passed by the learned metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 15, ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 5978 of 2004, the present respondent preferred revision being Criminal Revision application No. 274 of 2007 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge by judgment and order dated 18-2-2008 remanded the matter for hearing on the quantum of sentence by holding that the sentence awarded is on the lesser side, giving rise to the present Revision Application. ( 4 ) HEARD learned Counsel Mr. S. R. Yadav for the applicant, Mr. Iqbal A. Shaikh for the respondent No. 1 and mr. K. P. Raval for the respondent No. 2. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant mr. Yadav submitted that the learned magistrate was perfectly justified in passing the judgment and order 16-5r2007, imposing sentence till rising of the Court and ordering that the present appellant will pay Rs. 9050/- as compensation to the respondent, in default of payment of compensation simple imprisonment for one month, and therefore, the learned Additional sessions Judge ought not to have passed the order remanding the matter for rehearing on the quantum of sentence. ( 6 ) AS against that learned Counsel Mr. Shaikh for the respondent No. 1 as also the learned A. P. P. for the respondent No. 2 submitted that the learned Magistrate has taken a lenient view in imposing the sentence and according to the learned counsel, the present petitioner is a habitual offender and number of cases are registered against him, and therefore, the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is legal and proper which does not call for any interference by this Court in Revision. ( 7 ) THE learned Sessions Judge has relied upon the judgment delivered by the Apex court in the case of Shailesh Jashvantbhai and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2006 cri. L. J. 1132) It is surprising to note that the learned Sessions Judge appears to have not properly looked into the facts of the case in this Authority and merely relying upon this judgment, it is held by the learned sessions that ratio of this decision is squarely applicable to the present case. (2006 cri. L. J. 1132) It is surprising to note that the learned Sessions Judge appears to have not properly looked into the facts of the case in this Authority and merely relying upon this judgment, it is held by the learned sessions that ratio of this decision is squarely applicable to the present case. It is important to note that in the case before the apex Court the accused came to be convicted for the offence punishable under sections 53, 307, 324 of the Indian Penal code. The affidavit of P. I. is also filed to the effect that the accused in that case was involved in large number of cases. In that case, the trial Court while dealing with the bail application also noted about pendency of cases and further bail granted to accused pending trial was cancelled for breach of conditions imposed by Court. In light of these facts and circumstances, it was observed by the Honourable Apex Court that the order of the High Court while maintaining conviction reducing sentence to period already undergone with a fine of rs. 60,000/- as compensation to injured on ground that accused had no criminal antecedent is erroneous and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. ( 8 ) EVEN the decision rendered in the case of Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan (2002) Cri. L. J. 10031 relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. Shaikh does not have any bearing to the facts of the present case in the view of the following observations made in that case at para-12 of the judgment which reads thus: "12. The total amount covered by the cheques involved in the present two cases was Rs. 4,50,000. There is no case for the respondent that the said amount had been paid either during the pendency of the cases before the trial Court or revision before the high Court or this Court. If the amounts had been paid to the complainant there perhaps would have been justification for imposing a flee-bite sentence as had been chosen by the trial Court. But in a case where the amount covered by the cheque remained unpaid it should be the look out of the trial Magistrates that the sentence for the offence under Section 138 should be of such a nature as to give proper effect to the object of the legislation. But in a case where the amount covered by the cheque remained unpaid it should be the look out of the trial Magistrates that the sentence for the offence under Section 138 should be of such a nature as to give proper effect to the object of the legislation. No drawer of the cheque can be allowed to take dishonour of the cheque issued by him light heartedly. The very object of enactment of provisions like 138 of the Act would stand defeated if the sentence is of the nature passed by the trial- Magistrate. It is a different matter if the accused paid the amount at least during the pendency of the case. " ( 9 ) IN the case on hand, nothing has come on record that the present appellant accused is involved in such kind of serious offences and the case pending against the present accused is one under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court has rightly relied upon the judgment delivered by this Court on 13-7-2006 (Coram: D. N. Patelj.) in the case of bhagubhai Parsottamdas Patel v. Patel bhogilal Manilal (Partner Kaushik Steel suppliers and Anr. In Criminal Revision application No 162 of 2006, as in my considered opinion, the facts of the present case is identical to this case. It is pertinent to note that as per the order passed by the trial Court, the amount was deposited by the appellant-accused with the Court and the said amount was withdrawn by the complainant on 24-7-2007 during the pendency of the Criminal Revision application before the Sessions Court. It is also important to note that this Revision is filed on 12-7-2007 and the said amount is withdrawn on 24-7-2007, but the said fact was not brought to the notice of the learned sessions Judge. If this fact would have been brought to the notice of the Sessions Court, the Sessions Court would not have passed the order remanding the case to the metropolitan Magistrate Court. It is interesting to note that the cheque amount is of Rs. 7540/- while the trial Court has passed order to pay Rs. 9050/- as compensation and also imposed setence to suffer imprisonment till rising of the Court which has also been undergone by the accused. It is interesting to note that the cheque amount is of Rs. 7540/- while the trial Court has passed order to pay Rs. 9050/- as compensation and also imposed setence to suffer imprisonment till rising of the Court which has also been undergone by the accused. Thus, the trial Court has even taken care and awarded more compensation than the cheque amount which has been accepted by the complainant by withdrawing the amount. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the order passed by the learned Metropolitan magistrate is illegal and improper warranting interference by the Sessions court in Revision. Hence the Revision deserves to be allowed. ( 10 ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, the Revision Application is allowed. The judgment and order dated 18th February, 2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions judge, Court No. 9, Ahmedabad in Criminal revision Application No. 274 of 2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. The judgment and order dated 16-5-2007 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 15, ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 5978 of 2004 is hereby confirmed. Rule is made absolute. Revision allowed.