JUDGMENT : A.P. Lavande, J. 1. Heard Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Naik, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 and Mr. C.A. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor for Respondent Nos. 2. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Pursuant to order dated 23rd August, 2010 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 36/2010 preferred by Respondent No. 1 herein, the order dated 19th July, 2010 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Panaji was set aside and the Assistant Sessions Judge was directed to dispose of the appeal on merits and pass appropriate sentence in case the conviction was upheld. Pursuant to the said order, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji has disposed of Criminal Appeal No. 46/2010 maintaining the conviction of Respondent No. 1 and reducing the sentence of fine amount to Rs. 10,000/-and in default simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. Out of the fine amount, Rs. 5,000/-has been ordered to be paid to the complainant. The Respondent No. 1, therefore, stands convicted for dishonour of the cheque amount of Rs. 2 Lacs. I failed to understand as to how the learned Assistant Sessions Judge could have imposed the sentence of fine for Rs. 10,000/-after maintaining the conviction recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has not given any reason as to why he is imposing the sentence of fine only and not imprisonment. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court as well as of this Court that in a cheque bouncing case, the sentence imposed on the accused must not be flea-bite. Learned Judge seems to be totally oblivious of the judgments passed by this Court as well as the Apex Court while imposing the sentence of fine of Rs. 10,000/-only and that too after the matter was remanded by this Court setting aside the judgment passed by the lower appellate Court. 4. Be that as it may, the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 has fairly conceded that the sentence imposed on Respondent No. 1 is inadequate and that the matter deserves to be remanded to lower appellate Court for passing appropriate order regarding the sentence. I also find that the sentence imposed on Respondent No. 1 is grossly inadequate. 5. In view of the above, the revision is allowed. I also find that the sentence imposed on Respondent No. 1 is grossly inadequate. 5. In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The sentence imposed on Respondent No. 1 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Assistant Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji to pass appropriate sentence on Respondent No. 1 after giving an opportunity of being heard to all the parties. While imposing sentence, the learned Judge is expected to bear in mind the principles laid down by the Apex Court as well as this Court in the matter of sentence to be imposed on an accused convicted u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 6. The parties to appear before the lower appellate Court on 28th September, 2010 at 10.00 a.m. The lower appellate Court to dispose of the appeal expeditiously in accordance with law. 7. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with No. order as to costs.