JUDGMENT M.G. Giratkar, J. (Oral) - On last date i.e. 08th February, 2019, following order was passed "Shri R.B. Gaikwad, learned Counsel appears on behalf of the applicant and Shri B.M. Lonare, learned APP appears on behalf of respondent No.2. None appeared on behalf of non-applicant No.1 on 27.11.2018. Therefore, bailable warrant was issued against non-applicant No.1. The same is duly served, but nonapplicant No.1 or his Counsel was not present on 11.12.2018. Today also, none appears on behalf of non-applicant No.1. Shri Gaikwad, learned Counsel for the applicant is present and he is ready to argue the matter. Present Revision Application pertains to year 2013. Put up this revision for final hearing on 14th February, 2019. On that day, the matter will be heard and decided finally even in the absence of non-applicant No.1 or his Counsel." 2. Today also, none appears on behalf of respondent No.1. As per order dated 08th February, 2019, today, revision is fixed for final hearing even in the absence of learned Counsel for respondent No.1. 3. Heard Shri R.B. Gaikwad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant. He has pointed out the judgment of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur thereby convicting respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred as accused) and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs. 7,02,000/, in default, to suffer SI for six months. The appeal was filed by the accused before Sessions Judge, Nagpur. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 2011, partly allowed the appeal and modified the sentence to the extent that instead of fine of Rs. 7,02,000/, he is directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,02,000/. 4. Shri Gaikwad, learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is no bar for the trial Court/JMFC to grant fine without recording any reasons. Whenever there is a minimum punishment, then specific reason is to be recorded by the Court. Learned Additional Sessions Judge wrongly recorded the findings that the trial Court not recorded its findings for imposing fine of Rs. 7,02,000/. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 2011 is liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. There is no dispute that the accused issued cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/to the complainant. It was bounced. 7,02,000/. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 2011 is liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. There is no dispute that the accused issued cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/to the complainant. It was bounced. Therefore, complaint case was filed for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned trial Court has held that the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused is proved. Therefore, he has convicted the accused for the said offence and directed him to pay fine of Rs. 7,02,000/. Out of the said amount, Rs. 7,00,000/were to be paid to the complainant towards compensation and remaining amount of Rs. 2000/be deposited as a fine. 6. Learned Additional Sessions Judge reduced the fine amount to Rs. 5,02,000/from Rs. 7,02,000/. Learned Additional Sessions Judge while reducing the fine amount, recorded the findings that specific reason is not given by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. 7. Shri Gaikwad, learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that learned Additional CJM/trial Court was not required to give such reason because it was not a minimum punishment. Whenever there is a minimum punishment then the trial Court has to record specific reasons as to why he is imposing less punishment than the punishment provided for the specific offence. But, there is no reason for the Magistrate/trial Court to record any reason when there is no minimum punishment or findings. 8. In the present case, the applicant/complainant is contesting his case from the year 2009. Learned Counsel for the applicant has made a statement that not a single pie is paid by the accused till date. In fact, as per the default clause in the judgment of trial Court, he has to undergo jail sentence. It is surprising to note that how he is not in jail. 9. Learned Additional Judge has partly allowed the appeal. The operative part of the order reads as under : " i) Appeal is hereby party allowed. ii) The judgment and order needs following interference : 1. The appellant/accused-Kalimulla S/o. Narimullah Farooqui is hereby convicted under section 255(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act, 1881 and is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. ii) The judgment and order needs following interference : 1. The appellant/accused-Kalimulla S/o. Narimullah Farooqui is hereby convicted under section 255(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act, 1881 and is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 5,02,000/, In default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months. 2. It is directed that out of the find amount, an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/be paid to the respondent/complainant Krishna S/o. Baburao Gaikwad as compensation under section 357(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. The appellant is directed to pay the compensation Rs. 5,00,000/to the respondent/complainant within the period of two months from the date of the Judgment of this appeal. iii) The appellant/accused shall surrender his bail bonds. Iv) In the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. v) Record & Proceedings of Sum. Cri. Case No. 9424/2009 be sent back to the Lower Court immediately. vi) Reg. Cri. Appeal No. 166/2011 is disposed of accordingly. Judgment is dictated, delivered and pronounced in an open Court." 10. From the reading of operative part of the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, it is clear that the accused shall surrender his bail bonds. He has directed the accused to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/to the respondent/complainant within a period of two months from the date of judgment. As per the operative order, accused is convicted for the offence punishable under section 255(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 5,02,000/, in default to suffer SI for six months. 11. As per the statement made by the learned Counsel for the applicant, the applicant has not paid a single pie/fine amount. Then, the accused should have been in jail as per the operative portion of the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge. He has not paid any fine amount and even though he is out of jail. 12. Learned Additional Sessions Judge wrongly recorded findings that the trial Court not recorded specific reasons for grant of compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/to the complainant. It is pertinent to note that there is no minimum punishment/fine amount under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He has not paid any fine amount and even though he is out of jail. 12. Learned Additional Sessions Judge wrongly recorded findings that the trial Court not recorded specific reasons for grant of compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/to the complainant. It is pertinent to note that there is no minimum punishment/fine amount under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Whenever there is a minimum punishment/fine then the trial Court has to record specific reason as to why the sentence less than the sentence provided is imposed. Observations of the learned Sessions Judge are illegal. Therefore, revision is liable to be allowed. 13. In that view of the matter, I proceed to pass the following order. 14. Revision is allowed. Impugned order/judgment, dated 31.05.2013 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. The judgment and order dated 21.06.2011 passed by trial Court i.e. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur in Summary Criminal Case No. 9424 of 2009 is restored.