JUDGMENT :- Heard. Perused records. 2. Adequacy of sentence imposed by III Jt. Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Shrirampur on the respondent No.1 / accused for having committed an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1872 is in question in the present criminal revision application. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Suryawanshi for the applicant/complainant makes a statement that the respondent No.1 / accused has not preferred any appeal against the judgment and order of his conviction under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1872 passed by III Jt. Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Shrirampur in STC No. 522/1995 on 10/12/1996. Order dated 29/09/20 II reveals that the respondent No.1/accused was served with the notice of this Criminal Revision Application and he had filed his appearance through his advocate. However, none appears on behalf of the respondent No.1 / accused when the matter is called out for hearing today. 4. Perusal of the judgment delivered by the learned trial Court reveals that the respondent No.1 / accused had borrowed I hand loan ofRs.25,000/- and the cheque which was issued by him towards repayment of the said hand loan, was dishonoured by the Bank on which it was drawn for the reason of insufficiency of fund in the account of the respondent No. ] I accused. It is further revealed that the applicant I complainant demanded the said amount by issuing a notice in writing within five days of the return of the said cheque and called upon the respondent No.1 I accused to make payment of the said amount within 15 days. However, the respondent No.1 I accused despite having received the said notice on 01/04/1995 i.e. the next day of issuance of the notice, failed and neglected to make the payment as demanded. These facts gave rise to the complaint STC NO. 522/1995 and ultimately ended in the conviction of the respondent No.1 I accused under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1872 on the basis of the evidence led before the learned trial Court. Learned trial Court upon conviction of the respondent No.1 I accused sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of the payment of the fine amount, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. An amount of Rs.1,000/- was ordered to be paid to the complainant on realisation of the fine amount. Learned trial Court upon conviction of the respondent No.1 I accused sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of the payment of the fine amount, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. An amount of Rs.1,000/- was ordered to be paid to the complainant on realisation of the fine amount. This sentence, according to the applicant I complainant is grossly inadequate - in words of learned advocate for the applicant I complainant "flee-bite sentence". 5. Learned advocate for the applicant I complainant submitted that the amount covered by the cheque in question remained unpaid even after the complaint was lodged against the respondent No.1/accllsed in the trial Court and leaving the respondent NO.1/accused on a fine of Rs.3,000/- and ordering payment of Rs.1,000/- from the amount of fine recovered, amounted to extending lip sympathy overlooking the object of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1872. In support of his submission, he relied on the judgment delivered by the Hon 'ble Apex Court in Suganthi Suresh Kumar's case (Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs. Jagdeeshan : 2002 Cri.L. J. 1003(1) : 12002 ALL MR (Cri) 757 (S.C.)]. According to him, the sentence imposed is not based on the facts revealed before the trial Court and, therefore, it needs to be corrected by passing appropriate order in the present criminal revision application. 6. Pertinent observations made by the Hon 'ble Apex Court at para 12 of the judgment delivered in Suganthi Suresh Kumar's case are re-produced herein below. "12. The total amount covered by the cheques involved in the present two case 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 Magistrate 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." 7. In light of these observations, it is necessary to examine the facts in the present case. On pronouncing the respondent No.1 / accused guilty of the offence as aforesaid, learned trial Court heard the respondent No.1 / accused and the complainant. Impugned judgment reveals that the learned counsel for the accused pleaded for leniency on the ground that the accused aged about 55 years, belonged to middle class family and was only earning hand in his family. Countering these submissions the learned counsel for the applicant / complainant submitted that the sentence comprising of minimum imprisonment and minimum fine be imposed. It is in this back drop, the learned trial Court took a lenient view and proceeded to impose sentence of fine of Rs.3,000/- in default simple imprisonment for two months. Thus, it can be seen that the facts pleaded for leniency were not disputed by the applicant / complainant and the applicant / complainant asked for minimum sentence. Perusal of the verification statement, a copy of which is found annexed to this application at Exhibit "A" reveals that the respondent No.1 / accused was known to the applicant / complainant and the relations between the two were cordial. Obviously, this factor weighed in the mind of the complainant to ask for a minimum sentence. 8. What should have been the minimum sentence is the matter which needs to be resolved with reference to objects and reasons for enacting penal provisions in case of dishonour of cheques due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the drawer of the cheque vide Negotiable Instrument laws (Amendment Act), 1988. This has become imperative for the reason that the Courts awarding the sentence for the offence under section] 38 are required to award sentences of such nature as to give proper effect to the object of the legislation as observed in Suganthi Suresh Kumar's case. This has become imperative for the reason that the Courts awarding the sentence for the offence under section] 38 are required to award sentences of such nature as to give proper effect to the object of the legislation as observed in Suganthi Suresh Kumar's case. Adverting to the objects and reasons for incorporating the penalties in case of dishonour of cheque due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the drawer of the cheque, in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, it can be seen that such provisions were incorporated with a view to encourage the culture of use of cheques and enhancing credibility of the instrument. Needless to state that the credibility of the instrument i.e. cheque issued can only be enhanced if the payment thereunder is assured. In the instant case, therefore, the complainant had a minimum expectation, and reasonably so, of the payment due under the said cheque. This fact has been completely overlooked by the learned trial Court leading it to land itself in error. There is nothing before this Court to suggest that the amount due under the cheque has been repaid. 9. In the result the sentence imposed by the trial Court needs to be modified as follows. ORDER Respondent No.1/ accused shall pay a fine of Rs.28,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight thousand) and i.d. of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for four months and on realisation of fine amount. a sum of Rs.25,000/- be paid to the complainant. Bail bond of the respondent No.1/accused stands cancelled. Issue warrant for arrest of the respondent No.1/ accused. Criminal Revision Application No. 23/1997 stands disposed off accordingly. Ordered accordingly.