ORDER : 1. The petitioner herein was the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C. No. 10/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Cherthala, instituted on the basis of the complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein. The trial court as per the impugned judgment rendered on 25.3.2013 had convicted the petitioner for the abovesaid offence and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and in default payment of compensation, he was to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 2 months and that the entire compensation amount was directed to be paid to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. Though the cheque amount in question was Rs. 4,20,000/- the accused had taken a specific contention that the amount due from him to the complainant was only Rs. 50,000/-. The revision petitioner accused had also taken up such a stand at the stage of Section 313 Cr.P.C. questioning process before the trial court. Though the trial court had convicted the petitioner for the dishonour of the cheque for Rs. 4.2 lakhs, the trial court while convicting the petitioner had, after imposing the imprisonment till the rising of the court, directed to pay compensation of only Rs. 50,000/- by placing reliance on the abovesaid plea of the accused. Since the specific plea of the petitioner was that he was liable only for Rs. 50,000/- the petitioner was also generally satisfied with the outcome of the verdict, inasmuch as the compensation awarded by the trial court was only Rs. 50,000/-. Therefore the petitioner was advised that he need not prosecute any appeal and that he may pay the compensation amount and also suffer the nominal sentence of imprisonment of rising of the court. Thus the petitioner had undergone the imprisonment of till rising of court and also paid compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the 1st respondent complainant. 2. Later, the 1st respondent herein (complainant) being dissatisfied with the award of the compensation amount, had filed Crl. R.P. No. 20/2013 before the Addl. Sessions Court, Alappuzha to the limited extent of challenging the compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- by contending that since the cheque amount was Rs. 4.2 lakhs, the compensation amount should also be an equivalent amount and not a lower amount of Rs. R.P. No. 20/2013 before the Addl. Sessions Court, Alappuzha to the limited extent of challenging the compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- by contending that since the cheque amount was Rs. 4.2 lakhs, the compensation amount should also be an equivalent amount and not a lower amount of Rs. 50,000/- etc. So the Sessions Court concerned (the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Alappuzha), after hearing both sides, has passed the impugned judgment dated 25.2.2015 disposing of Crl. R.P. No. 20/2013 by concluding that the impugned finding rendered by the trial court in limiting the compensation only to Rs. 50,000/- by placing reliance on the plea of the accused is not correct inasmuch as he was convicted for the offence of the dishonour of the cheque for Rs. 4.2 lakhs and the allowed the revision petition and had set aside the sentence passed by the trial court in C.C. No. 10/2010 and had remanded the case to the lower court for limited purpose of consideration with regard the question of calculation of the compensation. When this impugned judgment was rendered by the Sessions Judge of the Sessions Court at the revisional stage, the petitioner herein (accused) was very much aggrieved by the same, inasmuch as he had already paid the compensation amount and undergone the imprisonment till rising of the court and has also paid compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the trial court directly to the complainant on the belief that the complainant is also satisfied with the same. 3. Thereupon, the petitioner accused had filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 5484/2015 before the trial court with the prayer to allow further examination of the complainant when the matter is taken up by the trial court consequent to the remand made by the Sessions Court. The said Crl. M.P. was dismissed by the trial court as per order dated 28.10.2015 on the ground that the subject matter of the remand made by the Sessions Court is limited only to the question of calculation of the compensation amount and, therefore, there is no question of allowing any further examination of the complainant, etc. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2015 passed by the trial court dismissing the said Crl. M.P. No. 5484/2015 the petitioner accused had preferred Crl. R.P. No. 1/2016 before the Sessions Court, Alappuzha, which was dismissed by the Sessions Court as per the order dated 3.9.2016. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2015 passed by the trial court dismissing the said Crl. M.P. No. 5484/2015 the petitioner accused had preferred Crl. R.P. No. 1/2016 before the Sessions Court, Alappuzha, which was dismissed by the Sessions Court as per the order dated 3.9.2016. The abovesaid order dated 28.10.2015 passed by the trial court in Crl. M.P. No. 5484/2015 in C.C. No. 10/2010 as well as the abovesaid order dated 3.9.2016 passed by the Sessions Court, Alappuzha, in Crl. R.P. No. 1/2016 are the orders, which are challenged in Crl. M.C. No. 1527/2017, whereas the basic order passed by the Sessions Court, Alappuzha on 25.2.2015 on Crl. R.P. No. 20/2013 filed by the complainant (whereby the matter was remitted to the trial court for the limited purpose of re- calculation of the compensation amount) is the subject matter of challenge in Crl. R.P. No. 1692/2016. 4. For the purpose of easy discussion of these matters, the grievance of the petitioner in relation to Crl. R.P. No. 1692/2016 could be taken up initially. In this regard Sri. A.D. Shajan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner accused submits that the petitioner had not chosen to file an appeal against the trial court judgment of conviction and sentence, as he was more or less satisfied with the award of compensation amount of only Rs. 50,000/- and, therefore, he was advised to undergo the nominal imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay compensation amount. He was under the bona fide belief that the complainant is also satisfied with the trial court verdict and that on this basis, the petitioner thought that a quietus could be given to the entire matter. It is only later that the complainant had preferred the revision before the Sessions Court to challenge the quantum of compensation, which has now been allowed by the Sessions Court with the remand to the trial court. In this regard it is again submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has a valuable right to challenge, not only the sentence, but also the conviction and the mere fact that the petitioner had undergone the sentence and paid compensation amount in terms of the trial court judgment will not by itself take away his statutory right to prefer an appeal in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, it is submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner has now been advised to prefer an appeal before the Sessions Court to challenge the conviction and sentence rendered against him by the trial court in the judgment dated 25.3.2013 in C.C. No. 10/2010. It is stated that the petitioner may be given the liberty to file such appeal against the trial court verdict along with a delay condonation application within a reasonable period and that the Sessions Court is bound to consider such appeal and application that may be filed by the petitioner. It is also urged that on the facts of this case, even if it is assumed that the Sessions Court was right in finding that the trial court went wrong in awarding compensation of only Rs. 50,000/- then it was not really necessary for the Sessions Court to have remanded matter to the trial court and the Sessions Court could have considered that question on its own. Therefore, it is argued that this Court may set aside the impugned order dated 25.2.2015 passed by the Sessions Court in Crl. R.P. No. 20/2013, whereby the matter has been remanded to the trial court and that this Court may direct the restoration of Crl. R.P. No. 20/2013 on the file of the Sessions Court, so that the criminal appeal that is proposed to be filed by the petitioner herein to impugn the trial court judgment as well as Crl. R.P. No. 20/2013 filed by the complainant to impugn the compensation awarded by the trial could be considered together by the Sessions Court. 5. R.P. No. 20/2013 on the file of the Sessions Court, so that the criminal appeal that is proposed to be filed by the petitioner herein to impugn the trial court judgment as well as Crl. R.P. No. 20/2013 filed by the complainant to impugn the compensation awarded by the trial could be considered together by the Sessions Court. 5. Having regard to the abovesaid submissions, it is to be noted that the Apex Court has held in the judgment in Retti Deenabandhu & Others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 1 SCC 742 , that a convicted person in challenging his conviction in appeal not only seeks to avoid undergoing the punishment upon him as a result of the conviction, he also wants that other civil consequences flowing from the conviction should not visit him and that the stigma which attaches to him because of the conviction should be wiped out and that the fact that he is set at liberty and would not have to undergo any further sentence of imprisonment would not debar him from questioning the validity of his conviction and the object of such a challenge to the conviction is to avoid the other consequences flowing from conviction and also to erase the stigma resulting from the conviction. In the said case, the appellant therein was convicted by the Sessions Court, Vishakapattanam for offences under Section 147, 148 and 352 of the I.P.C. etc. The sentence of imprisonment to be awarded by some of the appellants therein was 2 years, while in the case of other appellants was one year. The appellants had gone up in appeal to the High Court against the judgment of the trial court and the High Court referred to the fact that the appellants had been in custody during the course of the investigation, inquiry and trial, for about two years and the appellants were held entitled under Sec.428 of the Cr.P.C. to set-off the period of detention against the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them and the High Court therefore dismissed the appeal after observing that it was unnecessary to go into the matter, as it would be only of an academic interest. The said dismissal of the criminal appeal was challenged before the Apex Court by the appellants therein and the Apex Court held that even if the accused had already undergone the imprisonment period, they still have the right to challenge the conviction so as to wipe out the stigma arises out of the conviction. Para 3 of the said judgment reads as follows: "3. We have heard Mr. Agarwala on behalf of the appellants and Mr. the High behalf insofar as it has refrained from going into the merits of the conviction of the appellants, cannot be sustained. The fact that a convicted person has already undergone the sentence or is otherwise entitled to be set at liberty because of the length of the period during which he has been under detention during the course of investigation, inquiry and trial cannot prevent the said person from challenging his conviction in appeal. Conviction for an offence entails certain consequences. Conviction also carries with it a stigma for the convicted person. A convicted person challenging his conviction in appeal not only seeks to avoid undergoing the punishment imposed upon him as a result of the conviction, he also wants that other evil consequences flowing from the conviction should not visit him and that the stigma which attaches to him because of the conviction should be wiped out. In case the convicted person undergoes the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him or he is otherwise entitled to be set at liberty by the time his appeal against conviction comes up for hearing in view of the length of the period he was in detention during the course of investigation, inquiry or trial, such a person would still be entitled to challenge his conviction. The fact that he is set at liberty and would not have to undergo any further sentence of imprisonment would not debar him from questioning the validity of his conviction. The object of such a challenge to conviction is to avoid the other consequences flowing from conviction and also to erase the stigma resulting from the conviction. The High Court, in our view, was in error insofar as it declined to go into the validity of the conviction of the appellants." 6. The object of such a challenge to conviction is to avoid the other consequences flowing from conviction and also to erase the stigma resulting from the conviction. The High Court, in our view, was in error insofar as it declined to go into the validity of the conviction of the appellants." 6. In the light of these facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that though the petitioner has earlier undergone the nominal imprisonment till rising of the court and had paid the compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- that by itself will not take away the accused's precious right to file an appeal to challenge the very basis of the conviction. Now the petitioner has got the real grievance inasmuch as the complainant has preferred to challenge the quantum of compensation. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be blamed for taking the stand that the he wants to file an criminal appeal to challenge the conviction imposed by the trial court judgment. 7. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the Sessions Court need not have disposed of the revision filed by the complainant by remanding the matter to the trial court for consideration of the question of quantum of compensation and the Sessions Court itself could have considered that issue. Even the complainant was not interested for enhancement of the sentence of imprisonment but is only mainly seeking enhancement of quantum of compensation. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.2.2015 passed by the Sessions Court, Alappuzha, in Crl. R.P. No. 20/2013 remanding the matter to the trial court for considering the issue of recalculation of the quantum of compensation is set aside and the Crl. R.P. No. 20/2013 will stand restored to the file of the Sessions Court concerned for consideration of the matter afresh. In this regard the petitioner is also at liberty to file a criminal appeal along with a delay condonation application so as to impugn the judgment dated 25.3.2013 of conviction rendered by the trial court in C.C. No. 10/2010. Since the petitioner has already undergone the nominal imprisonment till rising of the court and has paid the compensation amount of Rs. Since the petitioner has already undergone the nominal imprisonment till rising of the court and has paid the compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant, it is ordered that the Sessions Court will consider the delay condonation application in the criminal appeal subject to payment of cost to the complainant, that may be fixed appropriately by the appellate court. The petitioner accused shall file such a criminal appeal along with a delay condonation application before the Sessions Court concerned, within a period of 30 days from the date of issue of a certified copy of this order. Further proceedings on Crl. R.P. No. 20/2013 which is now restored to file of the Sessions Court, Alappuzha, will stand deferred for a period of 30 days from the date of issue of a certified copy of this order so as to enable the petitioner to file criminal appeal along with delay condonation application within the said time limit. If the said appeal and the delay condonation application are filed within the said time limit, then the Sessions Court should pass necessary orders and should ensure that the criminal appeal so filed by the petitioner accused and Crl. R.P. No. 20/2013 filed by the complainant are heard together and orders are passed thereon after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to both sides. This Court has not entered into the merits of the controversy in any manner and none of the observations or findings in this order shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the matter, which is relegated to fully within the realm of the Sessions Court concerned. 8. Since the impugned order dated 25.2.2015 in Crl. R.P. No. 20/2013 has already been set aside, as indicated above, the consequential proceedings which are impugned in Crl. M.C. No. 1527/ 2017 have no independent legs to stand and hence, for the sake of clarity it is ordered that the order dated 28.10.2015 on Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 5484/2015 in C.C. No. 10/2010 passed by the trial court as well as the order dated 3.9.2016 passed by the Sessions Court, Alappuzha, in Crl. R.P. No. 1/2016 will stand set aside. 9. R.P. No. 1/2016 will stand set aside. 9. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner it is ordered that the Registry will return back the certified copy of the impugned judgment dated 25.3.2013 of the trial court in C.C. No. 10/2010 to the petitioner's counsel if an application in that regard is filed and this order is passed to enable him to present the said certified copy of the trial court judgment in the criminal appeal that is proposed to be filed before the Sessions Court. However, the Registry will ensure a photocopy of the said judgment of the trial court is placed in the case file of Crl. R.P. No. 1692/2016 for the sake of completion of records. With these observations and directions, both the Criminal Revision Petition and the Criminal Miscellaneous Case stand finally disposed of.