A victim’s appeal against inadequate compensation is maintainable under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.

The complainant alleged that the accused borrowed ₹20,00,000 in April 2014 and later issued two cheques for ₹10,00,000 each, which were dishonoured.

The accused relied on a 2014 notice (Ex.D.1) asserting a ₹2,00,000 transaction; the complainant relied on a handwritten acknowledgment of ₹20,00,000 (Ex.P.14) and the subsequent cheques.

The Magistrate convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act but imposed a fine of ₹2,00,000.

The appellate court dismissed both the accused’s appeal and the complainant’s appeal, holding that an appeal against inadequate sentence was not maintainable.

The complainant sought revision of the sentence.

1. Whether the concurrent decisions were perverse or otherwise sufficiently erroneous to warrant interference in revision, particularly as to the amount due and sentence.

2. Whether the complainant’s appeal against inadequate sentence or compensation was maintainable under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.

Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act raise rebuttable presumptions that a cheque was issued for consideration and in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability; the accused may rebut them on a preponderance of probabilities.

Section 138 applies where the statutory requirements concerning a cheque, its dishonour, notice and non-payment are satisfied.

Under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and does not ordinarily permit reappreciation of evidence; intervention is warranted where the lower court’s finding or order is perverse, grossly erroneous, unreasonable or legally untenable, or rests on irrelevant or no material, relying on Kuntegowda v. Thurubaiah, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1485.

The proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. permits a victim to appeal against, among other things, an inadequate sentence or compensation.

Section 357 Cr.P.C. permits compensation to be directed from a fine.

The High Court found that the accused’s signed cheques, their dishonour and receipt of statutory notice were undisputed, attracting the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139.

Ex.D.1 referred to a ₹2,00,000 loan and did not identify cheque numbers; it also pre-dated the cheques relied on in the complaint.

By contrast, Ex.P.14 recorded the ₹20,00,000 borrowing in the accused’s handwriting and was not challenged in cross-examination as forged or involuntary.

The Court therefore held that the trial court’s reliance on Ex.D.1 to limit the liability to ₹2,00,000 was grossly erroneous.

It also held that the appellate court had wrongly dismissed the complainant’s appeal, because the proviso to Section 372 permits an appeal against inadequate sentence or compensation.

The conviction was left unaltered, but the sentence was modified: the accused was directed to pay a fine of ₹20,50,000, of which ₹20,40,000 was to be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. and ₹10,000 defrayed towards State expenses.

In default, the accused was to undergo six months’ simple imprisonment.