IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. R. No.1303 of 2010 Date of Decision:9.11.2010 Chamkaur Singh .... Petitioner Versus Baba Farid Financers and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. S.S. Tiwana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. P.S. Paul, D.A.G. Punjab. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot, vide his order dated 7.10.2008 convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide his judgment dated 8.12.2009, dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction as well as sentence. Hence, the present revision petition is preferred. Only argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complaint of the respondent/complainant is not maintainable, because the same has not been filed through a competent person. In the head note of the complaint, one Kartar Singh being partner of Baba Farid Financers has instituted the present complaint but neither any partnership Crl. R. No.1303 of 2010 -2- deed has been placed on the file nor any witness to this effect has been examined. There is no merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in as much as the said cheque was issued in favour of the Kartar Singh and the copy of partnership deed mark A showing Kartar Singh as its partner and the copy of form-I as mark B showing Kartar Singh is the partner of the complainant's firm. Moreover, there was a specific recital in mark A that in case of any dispute against the finance company, any partner on behalf of the company or other partner can pursue the legal proceedings. No other argument has been raised. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed. However, taking into account that the petitioner is facing trial since 2002 and has already undergone 11 months out of the total sentence of one year, which is substantial period, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to that as having undergone. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed except for the modification in the quantum of sentence to that as having undergone. The petitioner, who is in custody, is accordingly ordered to be released forthwith. 9.11.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE