JUDGMENT : MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J. 1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 19.01.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate court’) by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment dated 12.06.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pillibanga (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) whereby, the learned trial court convicted the present petitioner for offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and also ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 13,50,000/- as compensation to the respondent No. 2-complainant. The appellate court while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner has reduced the sentence awarded to the petitioner by the trial court from one year’s simple imprisonment to six months’ simple imprisonment. The appellantte court also reduced the fine of Rs.13,50,000/- to Rs.7,00,000/-. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 14.08.2007 the complainant-respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act against the petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pilibanga alleging therein that one year ago, the petitioner took a loan of Rs.7 lacs from him for the purpose of buying some land. After some time when the complainant demanded repayment of loan amount, the petitioner issued a cheque dated 05.07.2007 of Rs. 7 lacs in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented the said cheque in the Bank on 07.07.2007 but the said cheque was dishonoured by the Bank with a remark that the account had insufficient funds. The complainant served a legal notice upon the petitioner through his Advocate. 3. The learned court below took cognizance in the matter and ultimately framed charge for offence under Section 138 NI Act against the petitioner. The petitioner denied the charge and claimed for trial. During trial the complainant got himself examined and got exhibited certain documents. Thereafter statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The petitioner got himself examined in defence. 4. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide judgment and order dated 12.06.2018 convicted the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him as aforesaid. 5. Thereafter statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The petitioner got himself examined in defence. 4. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide judgment and order dated 12.06.2018 convicted the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him as aforesaid. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12.06.2018, passed by the learned trial court, an appeal was preferred before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 19.01.2019 but the appellate court reduced the sentence of the petitioner from one year’s simple imprisonment to six months’ simple imprisonment and also reduced the fine amount from Rs. 13,50,000/- to Rs. 7,00,000/-. 6. At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the accused petitioner is behind the bars since 05.03.2019 and out of total sentence of six months’ the petitioner has served about four months’ sentence, therefore, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2-complainant have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments passed by both the courts below as well as the record of the case. 9. It is not disputed that the accused petitioner was sentenced to a period of six months’ simple imprisonment, however, the petitioner has so far undergone a period of about four months in custody out of six months’ simple sentence, so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the petitioner he has remained behind the bars for about four months now, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court, which was reduced by the appellate court, for offence under Section 138 of NI Act is reduced from six months simple imprisonment to the period already undergone by the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. 10. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner’s conviction for offence under Section 138 of NI Act, the sentence awarded to him is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. So far as the compensation amount is concerned, the respondent No. 2-complainant shall be free to initiate proceedings for recovery of the compensation amount before the trial court. The accused-petitioner is in custody and shall be released, if not required in any other case. 11. The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be sent back forthwith.