JUDGMENT :- The short facts of the case are as follows:- 1. The revision petitioner/complainant had initiated a calendar case in C.C.No.7582 of 1997, on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, against the three accused stating that the first accused had received a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as loan. In order to discharge the said loan, the accused company had issued five cheques in favour of the complainant. Out of the five cheques, the complainant presented three cheques for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-, Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.3,50,000/- respectively in the complainant's banker, viz., Central Bank of India, Teynampet Branch on 14.12.1996 and the same were returned with an endorsement "exceeds arrangement" on 16.12.1996. Thereafter, the complainant had issued legal notice to the accused on 19.12.1996 and the same had been received by the accused on 21.12.1996. The accused also sent a reply notice on 31.12.1996. However, the accused had not paid the cheque amount even after receipt of the notice. Hence, the above case has been filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. On the side of the complainant, three witnesses were examined and 29 documents were marked, viz., power of attorney, amalgamation of second and third empire company with the complainant company, three cheques which were dishonoured, memo issued by accused bank, legal notice, acknowledgment card, reply notice, authorization letters to P.W.2 and P.W.3, bank statement of accused, board resolution, promissory note, loan agreement, letter of credit, pronote executed by the accused for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-, cheque issued towards payment of six months interest in favour of the complainant, undertaking letter given by the accused to settle the loan amount and letter written by the accused to the complainant regarding receipt of the loan of Rs.50,00,000/-. 3. On the side of the accused, 15 documents were marked, viz., equity share letter, company registration document, letter given by the accused company for purchase of shares for a sum of Rs.2,94,00,000/-, letter of agreement for purchase of a share @ Rs.17/-, complainant's letter to the accused, letter sent by the complainant company to the accused company regarding purchase of shares, letters sent by the accused and statement of accounts. 4. On being questioned, all the accused had pleaded not guilty before the trial Court and hence the case was proceeded with. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that he is functioning as Chief Manager in the complainant's firm. 4. On being questioned, all the accused had pleaded not guilty before the trial Court and hence the case was proceeded with. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that he is functioning as Chief Manager in the complainant's firm. P.W.1 further stated that the Empire Finance Company had been merged with the complainant's company. He deposed that the second accused is the Administrative Director and the third accused is a Director. He further adduced evidence that in the year 1995, all the accused had received a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- and they agreed to repay the said principal amount along with interest, amounting to, a sum of Rs.64,00,000/-. In order to discharge the said loan, the accused had issued five cheques. Out of which, three cheques have been filed in the present case. One of the cheques is for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- and each of the other two cheques is for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. P.W.1 further stated that all the three cheques were presented in their bank, viz., Central Bank of India, Teynampet Branch, on 14.12.1996. All the three cheques were returned on 16.12.1996 with an endorsement "exceeds arrangement". Supporting his evidence, he had marked the above mentioned 29 documents. 5. P.W.2 had adduced evidence that he is the Manager of the Central Bank of India, Teynampet Branch. He had adduced evidence that the complainant's cheque which are marked as Exs.4, 5 and 6, dated 13.12.1996 were presented at his bank for collection and the same had been sent to the bankers of the accused viz., Indian Bank and the same was returned on 14.12.1996. 6. P.W.3, Assistant Manager attached to the Indian Bank, Royapettah, had adduced evidence that all the three said cheques came to his bank on 14.12.1996 and the same were returned with an endorsement "exceeds arrangement". P.W.3 further stated that on the particular date, the balance in the account of the accused was only a sum of Rs.9,97,000/-. 7. After considering the evidence of witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by both sides and on scrutiny of written arguments submitted by the complainant, the learned Magistrate had come to the conclusion that all the accused are guilty since the cheques had been issued by the accused in order to discharge the legally enforceable debt. 7. After considering the evidence of witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by both sides and on scrutiny of written arguments submitted by the complainant, the learned Magistrate had come to the conclusion that all the accused are guilty since the cheques had been issued by the accused in order to discharge the legally enforceable debt. Hence, the learned Magistrate had imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- on the accused 1, 2 and 3 respectively, failing which, the second and third accused had to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Further, the learned Magistrate had imposed one year simple imprisonment on the accused 2 and 3. 8. Not being satisfied with the quantum of punishment, the complainant had filed the above revision for enhancement of punishment and for grant of compensation. 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has raised the grounds in the revision stating that the learned Magistrate ought to have resorted to 357(3) of Cr.P.C. and liberally used that provision. The learned Magistrate failed to take into account the judgment rendered in 2001(1) CTC 368 of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India. The learned counsel further raised the ground that the learned Magistrate failed to award the compensation of Rs.57,00,000/-. The accused so far had not paid any amount to the complainant as on date. The learned Magistrate failed to grant reasonable compensation which the complainant is entitled to. The learned trial Court without awarding compensation passed the judgment which is not correct. Hence, the revision petitioner entreats the court to give direction to the accused to pay reasonable compensation to the complainant. 10. On the side of the respondent, no one appeared after receipt of this Court notice. The said transaction had taken place in the year 1996 and therefore, this Court is constrained to pass final order since the revision is pending on the file of this Court for more than 10 years. 11. On considering the factual position of the case and on perusing the grounds raised in the revision and on scrutinizing the impugned judgment of the trial Court, this Court is of the view that the complainant has established the case against the accused and therefore, the complainant is entitled to receive compensation from the accused. Hence, this Court directs the accused to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) as compensation. Hence, this Court directs the accused to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) as compensation. However, the period of one year simple imprisonment imposed on the second and third accused is on the higher side. Therefore, this Court reduces the sentence from one year to four months simple imprisonment, as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. The accused shall either pay the compensation amount of a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- or undergo four months simple imprisonment. This Court directs the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, to issue bailable warrant on the second and third accused and secure them into judicial custody forthwith in order to undergo four months simple imprisonment, as per this Court's order. If the accused pays the said compensation amount before being remanded into judicial custody, they would be set free and the sentence of four months simple imprisonment will not be enforced. If the accused 2 and 3 deposit the said compensation amount into the credit of C.C.No.7582 of 1997, on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, the complainant is at liberty to withdraw the said compensation amount, after filing a Memo/short note along with a copy of this order before the trial Court. If the accused deposits the said compensation amount, the fine amount paid by them shall be refunded. This order has been passed by this Court, after invoking the discretionary power vested with it. 12. In the result, the above revision is partly allowed with the above modification. Consequently, the judgment and conviction passed in C.C.No.7582 of 1997, on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, dated 13.05.2002, is modified. Accordingly ordered.