ORDER 1. The petitioner herein had filed a private complaint against the respondent herein in C.C. No. 590 of 2000, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vallioor and he was also convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment. The respondent paid fine amount. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner herein had filed a revision before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in Crl. R.C. No. 60 of 2003. The respondent herein also had preferred an appeal in Crl. A. No. 117 of 2004, challenging the conviction. Learned Principal Sessions Judge dismissed both the appeal preferred by the respondent herein and the revision petition filed by the petitioner herein, confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, the petitioner/complainant preferred this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to enhance the conviction and sentence imposed on the respondent herein by the trial Court. 2. In this matter, though the petition was filed in the year 2005 and being admitted, notice was ordered to the respondent, so far notice had not been serviced on the respondent. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though he took appropriate notice to the second respondent, notice could not be served, since exact address of the respondent is not known. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the cheque amount was Rs. 7 lakhs, the cheque being dishonoured, the trial Court had imposed only a flee-bite sentence of fine of Rs. 5,000/- and it had not imposed punishment of imprisonment on the respondent/accused. The Sessions Court also did not consider the aspect properly. In respect of his contention, learned counsel also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan (2002) 2 SCC 420 , wherein it is observed as follows: “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 cases 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 nature as to give proper effect to the object of the legislation.” 4. But, in cases 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 nature as to give proper effect to the object of the legislation.” 4. This Court considered the submissions and perused the records. 5. As per the facts of this case, one Narayanan has issued cheques for his liability towards the complainant herein and those cheques have been returned ‘unpaid’. A case was filed against Narayanan in C.C. No. 180 of 1999 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vallioor and it is pending in C.C. No. 180 of 1999. While so, the respondent herein has issued a cheque to the petitioner herein for withdrawing the case against the said Narayanan. But, the cheque issued by the respondent herein also was returned unpaid. Therefore, it is clear from the facts of this case that the respondent had no direct liability towards the petitioner herein. Further more, since the cheque issued by the respondent herein has not been honoured, the petitioner herein also did not withdraw the case filed against Narayanan and in the said case, Narayanan has been found guilty and convicted and sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment and he was also directed to pay compensation of the cheque amount. While so, an observation was made by the learned Sessions Judge that sentence of Rs. 5,000/- imposed on the respondent herein need not be enhanced. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the view that the observation made by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be said to be incorrect or illegal and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 6. One more legal aspect that arises for consideration in this case is that the petitioner herein, having preferred a revision before the Sessions Court for the same relief, filing another application before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., amounts to the second revision, which is barred under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. 7. For the abovesaid reasons, this petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.