ORDER : 1. The respondent was held guilty and convicted for offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by judgment of this Court passed on 31.05.2017, the gravamen of the charge held proved against her being non-payment of the amount of the cheque inspite of notice of demand served upon her by the appellant (complainant) after the cheque dated 15.11.2009 for Rs.5 Lakh issued by her had been returned unpaid by the bank for the reasons “funds insufficient”. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the respondent deserves appropriate substantive punishment for the reason her intention has not been honest in that she has consistently declined to pay over the last 8 years having availed the benefit of a friendly loan taken from the complainant. 3. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent (convict) submitted that she is not in a position to make any payment given the fact that she and her widowed mother are dependent on the pension of her deceased father. He also submitted that the respondent is presently a candidate for civil services for which she has appeared in the preliminary examination which she hopes to clear in near future and any substantive punishment would render her future bleak. 4. Both sides do not wish to come up with any formal evidence in respect of their respective contentions. 5. The background facts were vividly noted in the judgment dated 31.05.2017. The respondent had taken financial assistance from the appellant against the backdrop of ill health of her father then undergoing indoor treatment in a hospital. The initial loan of Rs.2 Lakhs was not returned. The respondent instead sought further financial help and the appellant, being sympathetic, extended the same willingly by paying further amount of Rs.3 Lakhs. It is against this backdrop that the appellant did not take any precipitate action for the dishonour of the cheque previously issued and agreed to accept a fresh cheque of Rs.5 Lakhs. The fact that the said cheque also bounced upon being presented reflects that the respondent did not have the means to repay and had played upon the sentiments of the appellant to avail of the temporary loan which there was no intention to refund. The appellant has suffered in the bargain having been deprived of his hard earned money only because he had taken pity on the condition of the respondent. 6. The appellant has suffered in the bargain having been deprived of his hard earned money only because he had taken pity on the condition of the respondent. 6. Though given the background facts noted above, it may be too harsh a view to send the respondent to prison by award of substantive punishment, it would be a mockery of justice if she is let off without being burdened with the responsibility to recompense the appellant for the financial loss she has caused. 7. In above facts and circumstances, it would meet the ends of justice if the respondent is directed to pay twice the amount of the cheque in question as fine which, upon being realized, must be released to the complainant (appellant) as compensation. Ordered accordingly. 8. Thus, the respondent is sentenced to fine of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs) with direction that she deposits the same with the trial court within a period of thirty days from today failing which she will be liable to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The amount of fine, upon being realized, shall be released to the appellant (complainant) as compensation by the trial court. 9. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate for requisite further proceedings on 04.08.2017.