JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 25.7.2008, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No. 99 of 2004, by which the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26.3.2004, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 182 of 1996 convicting the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to undergo S.I. for six months and to pay a compensation of Rs.34,000/-has been affirmed. 3. The allegation made in the complaint petition is that the complainant is the proprietor of Veenet Transport. It has been stated that the accused persons are the Cooperative Society and the Chairman and the Secretary of the Society. The complainant is a loading contractor of coal and provides dumpers, wagons and pay loaders to the society which had taken contract from M/s BCCL. It has been alleged that the complainant used to submit his bills from time to time which were paid and for the period October 1995 to February, 1996, a bill of Rs.3,12,218.28p was submitted by the complainant out of which an amount of Rs.2,02,081p was paid. It has been alleged that for the rest amount, a cheque was issued which got dishonored on being deposited on account of insufficiency of funds which led to issuance of a legal notice and when the amount was not returned a complaint case was instituted. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegations, C.P. Case No. 182 of 1996 was instituted, in which after conducting an enquiry, cognizance was taken for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and after substance of accusation was explained to the petitioner, the trial proceeded. In course of trial, five witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant. C.W-1-Pradeep Kumar Agrawal has stated that the complainant had given a pay loader to the society for transportation of coal. This witness is the proprietor of Shri Ram Traders and he had given his pay loaders on hire to the complainant. C.W-2-Sasdhar Banarjee is the Deputy Manager of S.B.I. Branch, Bank More, who has stated that the complainant had deposited a cheque of Rs.1,00,000/-which was returned with endorsement “exceeds arrangement”. He has also stated that the cheque was not encashed. This witness is the proprietor of Shri Ram Traders and he had given his pay loaders on hire to the complainant. C.W-2-Sasdhar Banarjee is the Deputy Manager of S.B.I. Branch, Bank More, who has stated that the complainant had deposited a cheque of Rs.1,00,000/-which was returned with endorsement “exceeds arrangement”. He has also stated that the cheque was not encashed. C.W-3-Mangleshwar Prasad Singh Chandar was the Manager of Dhanbad Central Cooperative Society Bank who had identified the signatures issued on behalf of the society as also the signature of the accused on the cheque. He has stated that the cheque was returned by the bank on account of insufficiency of funds. C.W-4-Sushil Kumar Agrawal is the complainant who has stated that he has filed a case against M/s Coalfield Bhutpurva Sainik Motor Pariwahan Sahayog Samiti Ltd and its Secretary and Chairman. This witness has stated that he was given a work order by the Society and he had submitted bills to the society for the period October 1995 to Feb.1996. He has stated that a cheque for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-was given which was deposited and had got dishonored. He has stated about issuance of legal notice and has also stated that during pendency of the complaint case the matter was compromised but the accused did not pay the amount. C.W-5-Ajay Kumar Srivastava has proved the lawyers notice which has been marked as Ext-3/1. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. It has further been submitted that the compensation amount of Rs.34,000/-has already been deposited by the complainant before the learned court below. 6. Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the complainant, has stated that the amount indeed has been deposited before the learned court below. Although no compromise petition has been filed by the parties concerned but it appears that the petitioner has deposited his share of compensation to the tune of Rs.34,000/-before the learned trial court. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, the evidence of the witnesses duly proves that a cheque was issued by the society towards the balance amount of bills payable to the complainant which got dishonored on account of insufficiency of funds and which ultimately led to institution of a complaint case. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, the evidence of the witnesses duly proves that a cheque was issued by the society towards the balance amount of bills payable to the complainant which got dishonored on account of insufficiency of funds and which ultimately led to institution of a complaint case. The defence has failed to elicit any contradiction with respect to the evidence of the witnesses and therefore the allegation made by the complainant has sufficiently been proved and therefore the petitioner was rightly convicted for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The same is hereby sustained. 7. However, as regards the sentence, which has been imposed upon the petitioner is concerned, it appears that the petitioner has already deposited his share of compensation of an amount of Rs.34,000/-. The petitioner also appears to have remained in custody for sometime. 8. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid facts, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone. 9. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the period of sentence.