JUDGMENT : S.M. Modak, J. The only issue involved in this appeal is about service of notice on the respondent-accused. This is a notice required to be sent as per clause (b) to the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('N.I. Act' for short). The complainant has sent the notice by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due on proper address, but the postal authority returned the envelope with the remark that it is not claimed by the addressee. 2. The learned Magistrate has refused to consider such mode of service as a valid service. In addition to that, when the complainant produced the envelope containing the notice, it was in an opened condition. The learned Magistrate for that purpose has pointed out the lacuna in the case of the complainant in not examining the postman. Whereas, the learned Magistrate has given findings on other issues in favour of the complainant. The learned Magistrate was pleased to acquit the respondent-accused for the above reasons. The said judgment was delivered by the Special Court for the N.I. Act at Nagpur on 21/02/2006 in Criminal Case No.1220/2005. The correctness of the said judgment is challenged by the appellant-complainant. Appearance of Respondent 3. The respondent-accused was duly served and he put in appearance also. Even, there was an occasion to saddle costs of Rs.1,000/- on him as well as to appellant vide order dated 04/04/2018. There was also an occasion to issue bailable warrant against the respondent on 12/04/2018. It was also served. However, the respondent has chosen to remain absent. Accordingly, this Court has decided to hear only appellant vide order dated 13/09/2019. 4. Accordingly, I have heard the learned Counsel Shri P.S. Ganer for the appellant-complainant. With his assistance, I have perused the record. I am of the considered opinion that the learned Magistrate was wrong in answering the issue of service of notice against the appellant. I intend to give reasons hereinafter for my opinion. Trial Court's Observations 5. I have read the observations given by the learned Magistrate while answering Point No.3 in the impugned judgment. Point No.3 pertains to failure to make payment in spite of service of statutory notice. It is in two parts. One - failure to make payments and second - service of statutory notice. The accused has never came with a defence that he had paid the amount of cheque within prescribed period. Point No.3 pertains to failure to make payment in spite of service of statutory notice. It is in two parts. One - failure to make payments and second - service of statutory notice. The accused has never came with a defence that he had paid the amount of cheque within prescribed period. Payment made during pendency of complaint does not amount to statutory compliance. It is only a mitigating factor. While negativing second part, the learned Magistrate broadly gave the following reasons - Reasons i. The complainant has not examined the postman. ii. The envelope was in an opened condition when it was produced by way of evidence in the Court. iii. The complainant has not examined learned Advocate Shri V.H. Meshram, who had given the notice. 6. It will be material to consider the oral and documentary evidence on this point. Documentary Evidence The complainant relied upon the following documentary evidence - i. Office copy of the notice dated 22/10/2002 (Exh.48). ii. Postal receipt given by the department for receipt of envelope (Exh.49). iii. Returned envelope containing the remark 'not claimed, hence returned to sender' (Exh.50). iv. Notice dated 22/10/2002 taken out from that envelope (Exh.51). Oral Evidence 7. When the complainant gave evidence by way of an affidavit, his further examination-in-chief was recorded. Apart from admitting other documents, the documents, which are reproduced above were shown to him. It consists of Exh.48, Exh.49, Exh.50 and Exh.51. Conclusion 8. It is true that the appellant has not examined the postal representative. There was a suggestion given to the appellant that he managed the open envelope and filed it in the Court. It was denied by him. 9. There is no further elaboration about which meaning for the word 'managed the accused intended to suggest. Does he mean to suggest that the entire packet was got fraudulently prepared from post authorities or whether the only condition of envelope being 'opened' was managed. First contingency is ruled out because of impossibility and second contingency is improbable. Reason is why complainant will open the envelope and file such defective envelope. He will not do any act on his own which will weaken his own evidence. Furthermore, there is no suggestion that the complainant deliberately removed the documents kept in the envelope and fraudulently kept the statutory notice in it. For all these reason, the suggestion is unacceptable. 10. He will not do any act on his own which will weaken his own evidence. Furthermore, there is no suggestion that the complainant deliberately removed the documents kept in the envelope and fraudulently kept the statutory notice in it. For all these reason, the suggestion is unacceptable. 10. One can understand that after the envelope is handed over to the postal authority for service, it passes through various hands prior to reaching the addressee. In this case, the envelope had made journey from the post office of the complainant to the post office of the accused and returned journey too. So, there is every possibility that the envelope must have been in a torn condition due to handling. (Even this happens when we handles the case proceedings). The learned Magistrate could have taken judicial notice. In this case, the office copy, which the complainant has filed at Exh.48, tallies with the notice at Exh.51, which was taken out from that envelope. Normally when any letter is posted by way of R.P.A.D., the envelope always contains the original and the office copy remains with the sender. I have seen the notice at Exh.51 from the original record. I have also seen the office copy at Exh.48, which is a photocopy Exh.51 bears the signature of Advocate Shri Meshram in the original form. This factual aspects are overlooked by the learned Magistrate. Correct Address 11. It is pertinent to note that the learned Magistrate has given a positive finding about the correctness of the address of the accused. The learned Magistrate has observed in paragraph 11 that- "Therefore, I have no doubt in my mind to say that the envelope Exh.50 is correctly addressed". 12. While giving these findings, the learned Magistrate has considered two probable addresses of accused. One is at Nagpur (given in complaint and at the time of service of warrant) and second is of Bhandara (given in Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement). Even during cross-examination, complainant accepted, Bhandara address at which accused was serving. On considering all probabilities, the learned Magistrate holds that address is correct. Nagpur address is mentioned on envelope at Exh.50. There is no challenge to these findings on behalf of accused. Not Exhibited A.D. Slip 13. It is true that there is an acknowledgment slip, which is always attached to the R.P.A.D. envelope. On considering all probabilities, the learned Magistrate holds that address is correct. Nagpur address is mentioned on envelope at Exh.50. There is no challenge to these findings on behalf of accused. Not Exhibited A.D. Slip 13. It is true that there is an acknowledgment slip, which is always attached to the R.P.A.D. envelope. It is true that this is not exhibited by the trial Court during evidence. (Basic foundation is laid by complainant during re-examination. Accused has not cross-examined the complainant thereafter). It is told that the reason was, it was not bearing the postal seal. But no record is shown containing such reason. I have seen said acknowledgment slip, which is filed along with List of Documents (Exh.26). These factual observations are correct. But when I have seen backside of the acknowledgment, it bears a number 3612 dated 23/10/2002. This number tallies with the number appearing on the postal receipt at Exh.49. It shows that this acknowledgment is nothing but the acknowledgment which was annexed to the envelope. These factual aspects are not considered by the learned Magistrate. Not Examining Postman 14. In fact when returned envelope was exhibited, the acknowledgment slip (which is its part) ought to have been considered. I do not think that under these circumstances, there is any need for the complainant to examine the postman. The documents are very much available before the learned Magistrate and it is only the question of reading them properly and drawing inference. I think that, the learned Magistrate has failed in that area. There are ways to prove documents. The returned envelope was initially posted by the complainant and it was returned to him. Hence, he is one of the persons through whom it can be proved. There is no need to examine the postman when there is no defence that remarks on it were manipulated. Provisions of Postal Laws 15. Section 37 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 empowers the Central Government to make rules about disposal of undelivered postal articles and also empowers to prescribe the period during which undelivered postal articles will remain in that post office. Indian Post Office Rules, 1933 are framed by the Central Government. Rule 99 lays down the period of seven days for taking the delivery of postal articles by the addressee. Indian Post Office Rules, 1933 are framed by the Central Government. Rule 99 lays down the period of seven days for taking the delivery of postal articles by the addressee. It is to be computed from the following date of presentation or the date of delivery of an intimation. It has to be returned to the sender on eighth day. If we perused the returned envelope at Exh.50, we can find that the date of presentation (posting) is 23rd October, 2002 and date of sending it to sender is 1st November, 2002. Hence, the proper procedure has been followed. View of the Trial Court 16. In paragraph 15, the learned Magistrate has observed that the offence needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Magistrate had chosen to take the view favouring the accused as observed in that paragraph. But, what I think is that, the inferences drawn by the learned Magistrate were drawn without considering the documents in a proper manner. So, the view taken was incorrect. For the above discussions, I have no hesitation but to hold that there was proper service on the accused. Once the envelope bears correct address and the addressee does not collect it, the postal authority returns it after reasonable time. Hence, I hold that there is a proper service of a notice within time and there is a failure on the part of the accused to make the payments. 17. For the above discussions, the impugned judgment needs to be interfered with. So far as the issue of issuance of cheque towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and liability, has already been answered in favour of the complainant. The issue of dishonour of cheque for want of funds is also answered in favour of the complainant. There is no challenge to this finding. So, there is no occasion for this Court to give it's observation on them. Sentence 18. Now the question arises is about the sentence. Section 138 of the N.I. Act lays down three kinds of punishment. One is, imprisonment which may extend to two years, second is, fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque and the third is a sentence consisting of combination of both the punishments as prescribed above. The original case is of the year 2005. It was decided on 22/02/2006. Even after filing this appeal, twelve years have elapsed. One is, imprisonment which may extend to two years, second is, fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque and the third is a sentence consisting of combination of both the punishments as prescribed above. The original case is of the year 2005. It was decided on 22/02/2006. Even after filing this appeal, twelve years have elapsed. I intend to award certain compensation to the complainant. It is permissible by Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complainant is deprived of the money, which he legally owes from the accused. So also, he must have spent and undergone mental agony. 19. The compensation can be awarded under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I intend to grant compensation under sub-section (3) of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Because, there are limitations for granting the compensation under Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The amount of compensation should be from the amount of fine only. At the same time, the respondent needs to have some deterrent effect. 20. It is submitted that during pendency of the trial, the respondent has repaid Rs.12,000/-. Vide joint pursis Exh.33 dated 27th October,2005, the accused by way of settlement undertaken to pay Rs.10,000/- out of Rs.48,000/- and agrees to pay remaining amount by paying minimum Rs.1,000/- per month or more within 24 months till realization of Rs.38,000/-. Ultimately, it is the choice of the parties. The amount of cheque is Rs.48,000/-. So, out of the amount of cheque of Rs.48,000/-, Rs.12,000/- have already been paid to the complainant and the balance amount comes to Rs.36,000/-. So, I intend to award compensation of Rs.60,000/- to be paid by the accused to the complainant. Imprisonment sentence can be imposed if accused fails to pay the amount of compensation. This issue was clarified by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijayan vs. Sadanandan K. & others, (2009) 6 SCC 652 . Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus : "It is true that the said provision does not include the power to impose a default sentence, but read with Section 431 Cr.P.C. the said difficulty can be overcome by the Magistrate imposing the sentence." 21. At the same time, I am sentencing the respondent-accused till rising of the Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus : "It is true that the said provision does not include the power to impose a default sentence, but read with Section 431 Cr.P.C. the said difficulty can be overcome by the Magistrate imposing the sentence." 21. At the same time, I am sentencing the respondent-accused till rising of the Court. The appellant may take steps for recovery of the compensation by approaching the trial Court. Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed by passing the following order : ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 21/02/2006 passed by the learned Magistrate in Criminal Case No.1220/2005 is hereby set aside. (iii) The respondent/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (iv) The respondent/accused is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay compensation of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand Only) to the appellant-complainant within two months from today. (v) The respondent/accused is directed to undergo imprisonment for two months in case of his default in paying the amount of compensation. (vi) The appellant is at liberty to take steps by approaching the concerned Court of the Magistrate.