JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. By way of this revision, the petitioner accused has approached this Court for challenging the judgment dated 17.5.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur in Cr. Appeal No. 125/2012 affirming the judgment dated 19.3.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, City North, Udaipur in Regular Criminal Case No. 268/2011 whereby, he stand convicted for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to 4 months S.I. and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 32,000/- to the respondent no. 1 complainant. 2. The dishonoured cheque issued by the accused to the complainant was for a sum of Rs. 24,000/-. While suspending the sentence awarded to the petitioner vide order dated 26.8.2013, this Court directed that he shall deposit a demand draft for a sum of Rs. 24,000/- in favour of the complainant. The said demand draft has been furnished and is available on the file. The petitioner has suffered custodial period of about 12 days. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the petitioner's conviction but prays that the substantive sentence awarded to him by the Court below and affirmed by the appellate Court for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in view of the fact that the petitioner has deposited the cheque amount through demand draft payable to the complainant. 4. The demand draft was deposited way back in the year 2013. The complainant did not make any effort to receive the same. In this background, the petitioner is directed to furnish a fresh demand draft in the sum of Rs. 24,000/- drawn in the name of M/s. G.S. Motors before the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) on or before 23.11.2017. The demand draft shall be transmitted to the complainant at its given address. Upon the petitioner furnishing the fresh demand draft, the earlier one deposited by him in this file shall be returned to him. Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as indicated from the record and since the petitioner has paid the cheque amount to the complainant, I am of the opinion that whilst upholding the conviction of the petitioner as recorded by the learned Courts below, his substantive sentence deserves to be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. 5. Resultantly, the instant revision is allowed in part. While upholding the conviction of the petitioner Pankaj Sethiya as recorded by the learned Court below for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the substantive sentence of 4 months S.I. awarded to the accused by the trial Court is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. The amount of compensation awarded by the trial Court is reduced from Rs. 32,000/- to the cheque amount of Rs. 24,000/- which has already been deposited by the petitioner and shall be treated to be sufficient towards compensation payable to the respondent no.1 complainant. The petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. 6. Record be returned forthwith.