Judgment :- This revision is directed against the judgment dated 14.09.2001 passed in C.C.No.665 of 1998 on the file of the VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad whereby the respondent herein was convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Brief facts are that the petitioner company appointed the respondent as its dealer in Jaipur and from time to time the petitioner company used to supply refrigerators and washing machines to the respondent on credit on a running account and in that process the respondent was due of heavy amounts to the petitioner company. In order to discharge the said amounts due by him, the respondent gave a cheque bearing No.332332 dated 03.08.1998 to the petitioner company for Rs.1,84,838/- drawn on State Bank of India, Jaipur. The petitioner presented the said cheque for encashment through its banker Punjab National Bank of Sanathnagar Branch, Hyderabad, which was dishonoured. Thereafter the petitioner, after complying with the statutory obligation of issuance of legal notice to the respondent etc., filed a private compliant before the court below, which was taken on file as C.C.No.665 of 1998 for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. During the course of evidence, the petitioner got examined one witness as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.11. Having considered the said evidence, the court below has come to the conclusion that the respondent herein is guilty of the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. However, with regard to the quantum of sentence it took a lenient view and sentenced the respondent to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-only and the same, as stated supra, is challenged in this revision. Heard both sides. No doubt, punishment for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is 2 years or with fine or with both. When once the court below takes a lenient view and imposes fine only the said fine amount can be imposed up to twice the cheque amount or with both. But it does not mean that in case of this nature where huge amounts are involved the accused are let off with a minimum fine amount of Rs.5,000/- Of course, it is always open for the persons like the complainant to institute suits for recovery of the money. But it does not mean that in case of this nature where huge amounts are involved the accused are let off with a minimum fine amount of Rs.5,000/- Of course, it is always open for the persons like the complainant to institute suits for recovery of the money. But there may be cases where no promissory notes have been executed and the entire transaction is only by ay of issuance of cheques. In those cases if lenient view, like this, is taken it is almost acquitting the accused. When once the court holds that the accused person is guilty of the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act, where an amount of Rs.1,84,000/-and odd is involved, the court below should take steps to adequately compensate the complainant if it wants to take lenient view. In fact, this court would have given it finding on this aspect, but as the respondent is not served with the notice that have been sent by this court, this court sets aside the said sentence of imposition of fine amount alone and remits the matter back to the court below i.e. VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for taking necessary steps to impose appropriate sentence after issuing notice to the respondent herein. This revision is accordingly disposed of.