Cheque dishonour sentencing may be reduced in revision where deterrence, compensation, and mitigating circumstances support lesser imprisonment.

Revisional jurisdiction may extend to altering the nature or extent of sentence, and in prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, sentencing must balance deterrence with restoration. The legislative scheme of Chapter XVII reflects stricter treatment of cheque dishonour while preserving the compensatory objective, and the offence remains quasi-criminal and compoundable. Where the maximum sentence has been imposed without adequate consideration of mitigating factors, including the modest cheque amount, compensation already awarded with interest, prolonged trial, and the accused's personal circumstances, a reduced term of imprisonment may be justified without disturbing compensation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sentence imposed for dishonour of cheque required reduction in revision, having regard to the revisional court's powers, the nature of the offence, the legislative scheme of Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the mitigating circumstances of the case.

Analysis: Revisional jurisdiction includes the power to alter the nature or extent of sentence. Sentencing under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 must balance deterrence and restoration, because the legislative amendments to Chapter XVII show an intent to make cheque dishonour prosecution more stringent while ensuring recovery of the cheque amount through compensation. At the same time, the offence remains quasi-criminal and compoundable. The maximum sentence had been imposed, but the Court found that no consideration other than the socio-economic nature of the offence had weighed with the trial court. The cheque amount was modest, compensation with interest had already been awarded, and mitigating factors such as prolonged trial and the petitioner's personal circumstances were present.

Conclusion: The conviction was maintained, but the sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months, while compensation as awarded by the trial court was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, sentencing must reflect deterrence and restoration, and the revisional court may reduce the sentence where the maximum term is disproportionate and mitigating circumstances justify lesser imprisonment without disturbing compensation.

---