Complainant appeal against conviction is not maintainable, and compensation-based sentencing for cheque dishonour need not be enhanced.

An appeal by a complainant under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code lies only against an acquittal in a complaint case, so it was not maintainable where the accused had been convicted and sentenced. The earlier withdrawal of the appeal before the Sessions Court further confirmed the absence of a valid remedy under that provision. On sentence, the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is compensatory in character and does not require imprisonment; a fine up to twice the cheque amount is within the statutory range. As no special circumstances justified enhancement, the compensation-based sentence was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lies against a conviction and sentence, and (ii) whether the sentence imposed for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 required interference on the ground that it was inadequate.

Issue (i): whether an appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lies against a conviction and sentence.

Analysis: Section 378(4) contemplates an appeal by a complainant only from an order of acquittal in a complaint case. The respondent had been convicted and sentenced, so the statutory condition for invoking that provision was absent. The withdrawal of the earlier appeal before the Sessions Court also reinforced the absence of a maintainable remedy under that provision.

Conclusion: The appeal under Section 378(4) was not maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether the sentence imposed for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 required interference on the ground that it was inadequate.

Analysis: The punishment prescribed by Section 138 permits imprisonment up to two years, fine up to twice the cheque amount, or both, but does not make actual imprisonment mandatory. The offence is primarily compensatory in character, intended to secure payment rather than to inflict retribution. As the Magistrate had imposed a fine equivalent to twice the cheque amount, the sentence was treated as sufficient, and no special circumstances were shown to justify enhancement.

Conclusion: The sentence did not warrant interference or enhancement.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the conviction order and the request for a more severe sentence failed, and the conviction and compensation-based sentence were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is confined to acquittal in a complaint case, and sentencing under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is discretionary within the statutory limits, with compensation-oriented punishment being legally sufficient absent special grounds for enhancement.

---