Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner herein / complainant has preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.753 of 2005, against the judgment made in C.C.No.10274 of 2001, on the file of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, praying to enhance the sentence of simple imprisonment and compensation. 2. The respondent / complainant's case is as follows:- The complainant is a manufacturer and the wholesaler of cooking oils "Vanaspathi" and other allied products. During the course of business transactions, the accused had placed orders for the supply of refined rice brand oil and the complainant supplied the same to the accused for a total value of Rs.17,75,329/-. The accused failed and neglected to pay the above amount as per the agreed terms and the balance outstanding was Rs.6,24,634.60/-. On repeated demands made by the complainant, the accused, in order to discharge the said sum issued a cheque bearing No.780932, dated 28.08.2001 for the sum of Rs.6,24,634.60/-, drawn on Bharat Overseas Bank Limited, George Town, Chennai-1, to and in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment with his bankers, viz., Indus Ind Bank, Nungambakkam, Chennai, but it was returned unpaid on 30.08.2001, with an endorsement, "exceeds arrangement". The complainant sent a lawyer's notice to the accused on 12.09.2001, which was received by the accused. The accused sent a reply notice on 19.09.2001 making false allegations that the accused was liable to pay only Rs.2,24,634.60/- and not the demanded amount. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint against the accused for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and it was taken on file as C.C.No.10274 of 2001. 3. During the case proceedings, the accused had filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.87 of 2005 in C.C.No.10274 of 2001 stating that without prejudice to the above said case, the petitioner / accused is willing to settle the full amount of Rs.6,24,634.60/-to the complainant. It was submitted that the matter came up for hearing before the Court on 07.02.2005 and at the time of argument, the complainant has stated that he is willing to receive the money only with interest. Hence, it was prayed to the Hon'ble Court for a direction to the accused to deposit the amount of Rs.6,24,634.60/- in C.C.No.10274 of 2001 and to take a lenient view on the accused. 4. Hence, it was prayed to the Hon'ble Court for a direction to the accused to deposit the amount of Rs.6,24,634.60/- in C.C.No.10274 of 2001 and to take a lenient view on the accused. 4. The respondent / complainant has filed a counter stating that the petitioner has not cited any provisions of law which contemplates the jurisdiction of this Court to issue such a direction. It was submitted that the petitioner has dragged on the proceedings for nearly four years and that the accused has filed the present petition at the time of completion of arguments in the above case. It was submitted that the accused, with the oblique motive of evading the just punishment and compensation, had filed the petition which is a self serving petition and that the accused has no concern for the cause of the complainant. It was submitted that the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy or leniency as he has deliberately suppressed the truth and unduly protracted the case for the past several years. Hence, it was prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. When the matter came up for final hearing on 04.03.2005, the learned Magistrate after hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusal of records observed that the petition has been filed after recording of evidence of both sides and when the judgment in the case is about to be delivered. The learned Magistrate also observed that the complainant had wanted payment of the cheque amount along with interest. As such, the learned Magistrate, on considering that the only dispute between the complainant and accused is to the amount which has to be paid by the accused and on considering that the accused had not made out a strong case through documentary proof and acceptable reasons to show as to why the Court has to allow such a petition and also holding that the petition has been filed belatedly, dismissed the petition. 6. 6. During the course of trial, on the complainant's side, three witnesses were examined and fifteen documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P15, viz., Ex.P1-power of attorney, Ex.P2-cheque for Rs.6,24,634.60/-, Ex.P3-return memo, Ex.P4-debit advice, Ex.P5-copy of lawyer's notice, Exs.P6 and P7-acknowledgment cards, Ex.P8-reply notice given by accused, Ex.P9-power of attorney given to P.W.2 to adduce evidence, Ex.P10-copy of bank account statement of accused, Ex.P11-power of attorney given to P.W.3 to adduce evidence, Ex.P12-copy of bank account statement of complainant, Ex.P13-invoices (series 23 numbers), Ex.P14 and Ex.P15-rectified bank account statement of complainant. On the side of the accused, four witnesses were examined and four documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R4, viz., letter sent by complainant to accused dated 22.06.2001, Ex.R2-letter sent by complainant to accused dated 25.06.2001, Ex.R3-letter sent by complainant to accused dated 04.08.2001 and Ex.R4-statement of accused regarding business transactions between complainant and accused. 7. The learned Magistrate observed from scrutiny of documents marked as Exs.P3 to P10 that the said cheque has been issued during the course of business transactions between the complainant and accused and that the same has been dishonoured. It is evident that the accused has to pay dues to the complainant as per documents marked as Exs.P13 and Ex.P8. As per Ex.P8, the reply notice sent by accused, the accused has admitted that the balance of dues payable by him to the complainant was Rs.2,24,634.60/-. However, the learned Magistrate observed that the accused had not filed any documentary proof to show that the balance payable by him was only Rs.2,24,634.60/- as alleged by him. The learned Magistrate also observed from the evidence of R.W.1 to R.W.4 that they do not know about the business transactions which took place between complainant and accused. It is seen from scrutiny of documents, viz., Exs.R1 to R4 and Exs.P1 and P2 that a portion of the goods ordered had been supplied by the complainant to the accused and that the accused had demanded supply of the balance goods. Ex.R3 is the letter instructing the accused not to have any business transactions with one Sundarajan, working in the complainant's firm. From scrutiny of Ex.R4, statement of accounts, it is evident that the balance amount payable by accused to complainant is the amount mentioned in the cheque. Ex.R3 is the letter instructing the accused not to have any business transactions with one Sundarajan, working in the complainant's firm. From scrutiny of Ex.R4, statement of accounts, it is evident that the balance amount payable by accused to complainant is the amount mentioned in the cheque. Hence, the learned Magistrate on considering the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and on scrutiny of document Exs.P1 to P15 and R4, held that the accused had issued the cheque only to discharge the balance amount of a legally enforceable debt and hence held the accused guilty of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate after considering the plea of the second accused that he had incurred loss in his business and that his father had expired recently and that he had procured the money for payment of cheque amount only through loan from various sources and on considering the plea that his family is dependent upon him and that he is not financially sound to pay the said cheque amount with interest, sentenced the second accused to undergo simple imprisonment till raising of the Court and further directed the first and second accused to pay a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- as compensation to the complainant within 15 days from the date of its order. In default of payment of compensation, the second accused was to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 8. Not being satisfied by the sentence and compensation imposed by the trial Court, the complainant has preferred the present revision. 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has contended that the Court below erred in law in not noting that the imprisonment imposed in the judgment, i.e, "sentence till the rising of the court for the day" was grossly inadequate and disproportionate to that of the offence committed by the accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It was contended that the Court below failed to note that as per Section 357 of Cr.P.C., adequate and just compensation should be awarded to the complainant so as to alleviate the suffering and injury caused by the accused by dishonouring the cheque, which took place in respect of the liability in the year 2001 and the accused dragged on the proceedings for nearly four years by filing vexatious petitions. It was pointed out that the Court below erred in law in not noting that even a simple interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the dishonoured cheque amount from the date of dishonouring till the date of judgment would have at least mitigated the suffering of the complainant. It was pointed out that the Courts below failed to note that the accused was using every opportunity including the constitution of the lok adalat twice, only for the purpose of delaying the proceedings and not for the purpose of discharging the liability arising out of the goods sold and delivered. Hence, it was prayed to enhance the sentence of simple imprisonment and compensation. 10. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and on perusing the impugned judgment of the courts below, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at for convicting the accused. However, the accused had filed criminal M.P.No.87 of 2005 in C.C.No.10274 of 2001, on the file of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and had sought permission to deposit the cheque amount of a sum of Rs.6,24,634.60/- into the credit of C.C.No.10274 of 2001. The same was opposed by the complainant. After contest, it was dismissed. However, the trial Court had awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.6,50,000/-payable by the first and second accused and in default, the second accused has to undergo three months simple imprisonment. This Court finds the order appropriate in the circumstances of the case. However, the accused had not deposited the said compensation amount. Therefore, this Court directs the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, to secure the accused forthwith in order to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. If the accused deposits the compensation amount of a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- into the credit of C.C.No.10274 of 2001, on the file of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, before being remanded into judicial custody, he would be set free and the sentence of three months simple imprisonment would not be executed against him any further. 11. Resultantly, the above revision is partly allowed with the above observations. Consequently, the judgment made in made in C.C.No.10274 of 2001, on the file of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, dated 05.04.2005 is modified. Accordingly ordered.