JUDGMENT : DEBI PROSAD DEY, J. 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order passed by learned Session Judge, Hooghly in criminal appeal no. 18 of 2015 arising out of CR case No. 256 of 2006 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act whereby and where under learned Sessions Judge has affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded against the appellant by learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Hooghly in CR no. 256 of 2006. 2. The fact of the case is that the appellant issued a cheque of Rs. 1,50,000/- in favour of the complainant but the said cheque was dishonoured on presentation on the ground that the account was closed by the appellant. Notice was duly served upon the appellant but no reply was given by the appellant against the said notice. Thereafter, a petition of complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and after completion of trial learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,00000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for another six months. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that there was no existing liability at the time of alleged issuance of cheque by the appellant and in fact a blank cheque was handed over to the complainant by the appellant as a co-lateral security. Secondly, the appellant never signed on the cheque and learned trial Court without adhering to the specific plea of the appellant and without examining the cheque with the help of handwriting expert erroneously came to a finding that the cheque was actually issued by the appellant. It is further submitted that the first appellate Court did not consider the evidence on record inadvertently and did not come to a specific finding after evaluation of the evidence on record and accordingly the judgment passed by learned appellate Court ought to be set aside. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that pursuant to the direction given by this Court Rs. 1,50,000/- has already been deposited in the trial Court by the appellant. In support of his contention learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has relied on the following decisions:— 1. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that pursuant to the direction given by this Court Rs. 1,50,000/- has already been deposited in the trial Court by the appellant. In support of his contention learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has relied on the following decisions:— 1. (2008) 7 SCC 137 (Sudhir Kumar Bhalla v. Jagdish Chand) 2. (2006) 6 SCC 39 (M.S Narayana Menon Alias Mani v. State of Kerala). 3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 contended that the complainant duly proved the existing liability of the appellant at the time of issuance of the cheque and that the appellant has admitted that the cheque was issued by him during trial. It is submitted that there was absolutely no scope of sending the cheque for examination by the handwriting expert in view of such specific admission of the appellant and that learned trial Court duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case after evaluating the evidence on record and accordingly it cannot be said that the judgment of the learned Appellate Court is not in accordance with law. 4. Learned Advocate for the opposite party no. 2 also distinguished the decisions referred to hereinabove on the point that the complainant has extensively proved the existing liability by producing the bills and other documents of the appellant and therefore learned trial Court as well as learned First Appellate Court were justified in rejecting such plea of the appellant and convicted the appellant. 5. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the appellant used to work as a contractor under the Public Works Department at Chinsurah and he used to purchase building materials from the complainant on credit. However, the appellant could not liquidate his entire dues and in due discharge of his liability he issued a cheque of Rs. 1,50,000/- in favour of the complainant but the said cheque was dishonoured. The complainant within the time stipulated under Negotiable Instrument Act issued notice upon the appellant but the appellant did not send any reply to the said notice. Thereafter the petition of complaint was filed against the appellant. 1,50,000/- in favour of the complainant but the said cheque was dishonoured. The complainant within the time stipulated under Negotiable Instrument Act issued notice upon the appellant but the appellant did not send any reply to the said notice. Thereafter the petition of complaint was filed against the appellant. It is apparent from the judgment of the learned trial Court as well as from the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court that both the Courts dealt with the point of existing liability extensively and thereafter on evaluation of the evidence on record came to a specific decision that there was existing liability on the part of the appellant and that is why the cheque was issued by the appellant. All these factual aspects have been dealt with correctly if not properly by both the Courts below. It is true that learned first Appellate Court has quoted extensively from the judgment of the learned trial Court but it is equally true that the judgment of the first Appellate Court reveals that the evidence on record as well as the plea of the appellant were appropriately dealt with by the first Appellate Court on evaluation of the evidences on record. The facts and circumstances of the decisions reported to hereinabove are absolutely different from the facts and circumstances of the case under reference. In Sudhir Kumar Bhalla (Supra) the parties were locked in a cross-litigation and the High Court did not consider the plea of existing liability at the time of disposal of such case and that is why the judgment of the High Court was set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is apparent from the discussions of the learned trial Court that the chalan, bill and receipt of materials sent by the complainant to the appellant have been marked exhibit 4 and on the basis of exhibit 4 learned trial Court came to a specific conclusion that there was existing liability on the part of the appellant and in discharge of his existing liability the appellant had issued such cheque. Learned first appellate Court has also looked into the plea of the appellant regarding existing liability and has relied on Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act as well as Section 139 of the said Act in order to come to a definite conclusion that there was existing liability. Learned first appellate Court has also looked into the plea of the appellant regarding existing liability and has relied on Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act as well as Section 139 of the said Act in order to come to a definite conclusion that there was existing liability. The decision of M.S Narayana Menon alias Mani (Supra) is also not applicable in the context of the given facts and circumstances of this case since the complainant had duly proved the existing liability of the appellant and both the Courts below have concurrently held that the appellant had failed to rebut the prosecution under Section 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 6. The cheque value as it appears from the materials on record is Rs. 1,50,000/-. 7. Learned trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,00000/-. The cheque was issued on 30th April, 2006 and the opposite party no. 2 has been prosecuting with the case since 2006. Considering the pendency of the litigation for last 12 years I am of considered view that the appellant ought to be sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 3,00000/- and there is absolutely no doubt or confusion in the mind of the Court to affirm the sentence to the extent of the fine awarded by learned trial Court as well as by the learned first appellate Court. Admittedly, the cheque was issued during the course of business transaction and therefore, in my considered view learned Courts did not consider that substantial rigorous punishment for two years would be in excess of the actual offence committed by the appellant. Failure to make payment in due discharge of liability may be dealt with in the form of financial punishment but to sentence a person to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years would be in excess of reasonable discretion exercised by the learned Courts below. By invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure I thus modify the quantum of sentence by setting aside the sentence of imprisonment and simultaneously maintaining the sentence of fine. The appellant has already deposited Rs. 1,50,000/- in the meantime. The appellant is thus directed to deposit Rs. 1,50,000/- within a period of one month from date and the opposite party no. The appellant has already deposited Rs. 1,50,000/- in the meantime. The appellant is thus directed to deposit Rs. 1,50,000/- within a period of one month from date and the opposite party no. 2 in at liberty to withdraw the entire amount from the trial Court and if the appellant fails to deposit the remaining Rs. 1,50,000/- within a month from date, in that event the appellant will have to suffer simple imprisonment for six months only. The application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is accordingly disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order. 8. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.