Criminal Revision No.597 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.597 of 2005. Date of Decision: 9.3.2011. Swaran Singh ......Petitioner Versus H.L. Chaudhary ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate, for the petitioner, None for the respondent. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated December 6th, 2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated October 11th, 2002 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.19,000/- with default stipulation. Out of Rs.19,000/-, an amount of Rs.18,500/- was directed to be paid to the complainant. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner does not challenge the judgment of conviction and only prays that the petitioner be given the benefit of being released on probation. 3. The grounds pleaded are that, (i) the amount involved was Rs.18,500/- which the petitioner has paid to the respondent as find mention in the order dated October 11th, 2002; (ii) the petitioner is 4th class employee of U.T. Administration; (iii) he has a family consisting of his wife and three children; (iv) he is the only bread winner of his family and; (v) he has already undergone actual Criminal Revision No.597 of 2005 2 sentence of about 10 days. 4. The judgment Gian Chand vs. M/s Malwa Traders 1995(2) Rcr (Criminal) 383 has been cited in the context. 5. Modern day jurisprudence aims at reformation of offender so that he again joins the mainstream and contributes to the society as a citizen. Of course, the nature and gravity of offence is not to be lost sight of. The offence in this case was under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 6. Similar circumstances were available in the cited case. The grounds pleaded in this case are substantial and strong so the request is accepted. 7. This being so, the conviction of the petitioner is upheld but the order of sentence is set-aside and it is ordered that instead of being sentenced to any punishment, he be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 provided that he enters into bonds in the sum of ` 10,000/- for a period of 1 year to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh. He shall receive the sentence if and when called by the Court during the said period and shall maintain the peace and be of good behaviour in the meantime. 8. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 9.3.2011. SN