Criminal Revision No.2052 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2052 of 2005 Date of Decision 24.12.2010 Smt.Darshna Devi ...... Petitioner VERSUS M/s Sthaneshwar Finance Company, Kurukshetra, Distt. Kurukshetra and another ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.D.S.Dalee, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Vide judgment dated 24.07.2004, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurkshetra, the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and to pay a sum of Rs.86,600/- as compensation to the complainant-respondent No.1 (herein referred as 'the complainant'). However, the Appellate Court at Kurukshetra dismissed her appeal on 25.10.2005. The allegations against the petitioner are that in discharge of her legally enforceable liability, she issued a cheque of Rs.86,600/- on 03.10.1996 in favour of the complainant and the same was dishonoured with the remarks 'insufficient funds'. She had also sent reply to the notice, as issued by the complainant, denying liability to make the payment. Criminal Revision No.2052 of 2005 2 Consequently, complaint was filed which was contested by the petitioner. On trial, she was convicted and sentenced accordingly. Having scrutinized the impugned judgment, it transpires that sufficient evidence has been led in order to establish the offence against the petitioner. The evidence reveals that cheque Ex.C1 was issued on 03.10.1996 in favour of the complainant, who tendered the same for encashment but was dishonoured. The complainant issued notice Ex.C-3 on 14.10.1996 but to no response. The petitioner has made no plausible explanation. Evidence led in defence is not worth reliance. The evidence, on the basis of which findings of fact have been returned by the Courts below, appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No such illegality much less irregularity or manifest error apparent on the record has been pointed out in the conduct of the trial or procedure which may result into miscarriage of justice or cause any prejudice to the petitioner, therefore, these findings do not call for any interference at this revisional stage. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel seeks some leniency on the quantum of sentence. The complaint is of the year 1996. The petitioner has suffered a lot of agony on account of the pendency of proceedings in the Courts for the last fourteen years and the sword of sentence remained hanging over her head since then. She has undergone about one month of the substantive sentence and has already deposited Rs.20,000/- in Court and is ready to pay the remaining sum. Under the peculiar circumstances of the present case, it would be in the fitness of things to extend some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in Criminal Revision No.2052 of 2005 3 the sentence to the extent that the petitioner be released on probation under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on her executing a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, for a period of one year within which period she shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, she will be ready to serve sentence as and when called for with the condition that an amount of Rs.20,000/- as deposited by her, be paid to the complainant. The petitioner is also directed to pay the remaining sum of Rs.66,600/-, within three months from today, failing which, she would serve the remaining part of sentence as awarded by the Courts below. Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 24.12.2010 mamta-II