JUDGMENT:- By consent, admitted and taken up for final hearing, forthwith. 2. The applicant is the original complainant. The respondent no. 1 is the original accused. The case against the respondent no. 1, which had been filed on the basis of a complaint made by the applicant, was in respect of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The cheuqe in question was in the sum of Rs. 18,665/-. The learned Magistrate, after holding the trial, held the respondent no.1 guilty of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 37,330/- i. e. double the amount of the cheque. The learned Magistrate directed that an amount of Rs. 20,000/- out of the amount affine, if recovered, shall be paid as a compensation to the applicant. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence imposed upon him, the Respondent no. 1 appealed to the Court of Sessions. The Court of Sessions maintained the conviction recorded by the learned Magistrate but, modified the sentence imposed. The Sessions Court sentenced the respondent no. 1 to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and additionally directed him to pay the compensation in a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the applicant. By the present revision application, the applicant/original complainant has approached this Court praying that the order passed by the Court of Sessions, setting aside the sentence of imprisonment, be set aside and the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment of one month, as awarded by the Magistrate, be restored. 3. It is interesting to note that under the order passed by the Magistrate, the applicant was to get compensation only to the extent of Rs.20,000/- and as per the order passed by the Sessions Court in an appeal, he would be getting the compensation to the extent of Rs.30,000/-. Thus in-spite of being able to get an additional amount of sum of Rs. 10,000/- the applicant is not satisfied and wants to see that the respondent no. 1 lands in prison. 4. The offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not involve any moral turpitude. It is basically a breach of promise to repay. It is a deemed offence. 10,000/- the applicant is not satisfied and wants to see that the respondent no. 1 lands in prison. 4. The offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not involve any moral turpitude. It is basically a breach of promise to repay. It is a deemed offence. Under these circumstances, if the Sessions Judge felt that the substantive sentence ought not to be imposed it would be within his discretion, to set aside the sentence of imprisonment and no interference with the exercise of such discretion, is warranted in the present revision proceedings. 5. It cannot be ignored that the applicant's approach -viz:-that the respondent no. 1 must be sent to prison, is not justified. Really speaking, the applicant cannot be heard to make a such submission. Considering the nature of the offence, the grievance of the applicant ought to be limited to the extent of the compensation, which he expects to get. Insisting that the respondent no. 1 should be made to suffer by undergoing a sentence of imprisonment, does not seem to be justified at all. 6. There is, however, one error in the order passed by the Sessions Court in the appeal. The scheme of provisions of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly indicates that where fine forms a part of the sentence, then the compensation can be ordered to be paid only from the amount of fine. In the instant case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has imposed the sentence of fine and has directed the compensation to be paid separately, over and above, the amount of fine. This is not correct. To the limited extent, therefore, the order passed by the Sessions Court needs to be modified. 7. Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, the conviction of the respondent no. 1 is maintained. However, the sentence imposed by the trial Court, as also by the Appellate Court, is set aside and substituted by the following :- The respondent No.1 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.37,330/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. If the amount of fine is recovered, an amount of Rs.35,000/- (Rs. Thirty Five Thousand) therefrom shall be paid to the applicant, as compensation. Since the respondent no. If the amount of fine is recovered, an amount of Rs.35,000/- (Rs. Thirty Five Thousand) therefrom shall be paid to the applicant, as compensation. Since the respondent no. 1 appears to have already deposited the amount of Rs.37,330/- pursuant to the sentence imposed by the trial Court, he need not deposit the amount afresh, and the amount so deposited by him, be adjusted towards the amount of fine, as has been imposed by this Court. 8. The Revision Application is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. Ordered accordingly.