ORDER : 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Hadish Ansari is present. 2. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Jitendra Pandey is also present. 3. The present revision application has been filed against judgment dated 17.01.2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, III, Jamshedpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 263 of 2008 by which the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced vide order dated 12.09.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in complaint case C/1 case no. 468/2003/T.R. No. 683 of 2008 by which the petitioner was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and was also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 43,000/- to the complainant as compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the complaint case was filed for the offence under Sections 420 IPC and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but ultimately the petitioner was convicted only under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned counsel submits that the cheque was presented twice and for the first bouncing, no case was filed, but upon second bouncing, legal notice was sent and the case was filed. He also submits that before the learned trial court, the petitioner had made payment of Rs. 30,000/- which was part amount of the cheque to the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made specific prayer that intention to repay the amount is reflected by the very fact that the part of the amount of the cheque was already paid by the petitioner at the stage of trial itself. He submits that so far as the remaining amount is concerned, some more time may be granted by this court. Learned counsel has also submitted that on account of the fact that there was bonafide on the part of the petitioner by making repayment of the cheque amount to the extent of Rs. 30,000/- some lenient view may be taken and sentence be modified. 5. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 in spite of service of notice. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has assisted this court for the purposes of final disposal of the case. 30,000/- some lenient view may be taken and sentence be modified. 5. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 in spite of service of notice. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has assisted this court for the purposes of final disposal of the case. Learned counsel for the State also submits that so far as sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is concerned, there is no minimum sentence prescribed as such and further there is an option to give imprisonment to the extent of 2 years or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of cheque or with both. The learned counsel submits that accordingly the sentence can be modified such that the complainant is duly compensated for the amount which he has not received during the pendency of the present case. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record, this court finds that the prosecution case, in brief, is that there was a friendly relationship between the complainant and the petitioner and the petitioner approached the complainant for a friendly loan of Rs. 70,000/- for marriage of his daughter. The complainant gave a sum of Rs. 70,000/- to the petitioner and the petitioner handed over a post-dated cheque dated 20.03.03. On 20.03.2003 the complainant deposited the cheque for encashment but it was dishonoured as the account of the petitioner was closed regarding which the complainant was informed vide Cheque return memo dated 25.03.03. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 17.04.03 to the petitioner through registered post with a request to return the sum of Rs. 70,000/- within 15 days. In spite of receiving the notice on 23.04.03 the petitioner did not make payment of the cheque amount. On the basis of complaint, C/1 Case No. 468 of 03 was registered before the court of learned CJM Jamshedpur on 09.05.03. 8. Altogether three witnesses were examined from the side of the complainant. They were C.W. 1 Satyanarayan Prasad, C.W. 2 A. Rahman and C.W.3 Parmanand Singh. C.W. 1 was the complainant himself and C.W. 2 was the bank official. 8. Altogether three witnesses were examined from the side of the complainant. They were C.W. 1 Satyanarayan Prasad, C.W. 2 A. Rahman and C.W.3 Parmanand Singh. C.W. 1 was the complainant himself and C.W. 2 was the bank official. This court finds that on the basis of the complaint, enquiry was conducted and vide order dated 16.06.2003, a prima-facie case was made out against the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 IPC and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the charge was framed under the aforesaid sections on 27.07.2006. The learned Trial Court after considering the evidences on record, recorded its finding at para-12 of its judgment. From the perusal of the judgment of the learned trial court, it appears that the learned trial court granted the benefit of doubt to the petitioner so far as offence under Section 420 IPC is concerned, but held the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 9. While sentencing, the learned trial court recorded that the petitioner had made payment of Rs. 30,000/- which was a part of the cheque amount to the complainant and accordingly the learned trial court convicted the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and further directed him to pay a sum of Rs. 43,000/- against compensation of the remaining cheque amount and the litigation cost to the complainant in terms of Section 357 (3) of the Cr. P.C. 10. The appellate court also scrutinized the materials on record and was of the view that the complainant has been able to prove the case against the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act beyond all reasonable doubt. 11. After going through the judgments passed by both the learned courts below, this court finds that the learned courts below have given concurrent findings in connection with the offence committed by the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner while advancing his argument could not point out any error, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments of conviction passed by the learned courts below. 12. This court also does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is upheld. 12. This court also does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is upheld. It further transpires that during the pendency of the complaint case, the petitioner had made payment of Rs. 30,000/- which was a part of the cheque amount and as per the finding of the learned trial court itself, only Rs. 43,000/- remain unpaid which was directed to be paid by way of compensation. 13. The cheque amount was for an amount of Rs. 70,000/- out of which Rs. 30,000/- has already been paid at the stage of trial and the learned trial court had given a compensation amount of Rs. 43,000/-. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, this court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be served if the sentence of the petitioner is modified by a fine of equivalent amount of Rs. 43,000/- over and above the compensation amount which has already been awarded by the learned trial court. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is hereby modified to fine of Rs. 43,000/-. The entire amount of compensation of Rs. 43,000/- as well as fine of Rs. 43,000/- is directed to be deposited before the learned court below within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order. 14. In case of non-deposit of the fine amount, the bail bond furnished by the petitioner will be cancelled and the petitioner would serve the sentence already awarded by the learned court below. 15. It is further directed that the fine amount of Rs. 43,000/- as well as the compensation of Rs. 43,000/- be released in favour of the complainant after due identification. 16. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this criminal revision is disposed of. 17. Pending I.A., if any, stands dismissed as not pressed. 18. The lower court records be immediately sent to the learned court below. 19. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail.