substantive sentence of one month simple imprisonment is to be altered in her favour by reducing it to imprisonment till the rising of the court. This plea can be considered only subject to rendering of justice to the complainant, by enhancement of the compensation amount, taking into consideration the long lapse of time, after the dishonour of the cheques. Moreover, as the joint sentence is in two complaints, even though it is jointly tried, is per se illegal and ultra vires. This Court, in revision, can easily remit the matter to the trial court, for imposing proper sentence. This will result in unnecessary delays, with scope for further challenge, which will certainly cause injustice to the complainant. Instead of such remit, this Court, in revision, is certainly empowered to correct such illegality and if there is any, technical objection in so doing in the accused's revision, certainly the suo motu revisional powers can be appropriately invoked for rectifying such illegality. Moreover, the joint default sentence clause in this case is 3 months' simple imprisonment and as the balance amount payable is only Rs.1 lakh in one case and Rs.2 lakhs in the other case, this Court is inclined to limit the separate default sentences as one month in the former case and 2 months in the latter case, thus totalling to only 3 months, which is the same as in the impugned joint default sentence. So, there is no question of any
