IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1382 of 2009 Date of decision : July 17, 2009 Charan Dass ....Petitioner versus M/s Sarvotam Leasing & Real Estate Ltd and another ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. KDS Sodhi, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent no. 1 Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab for respondent no. 2 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Charan Dass has filed the instant revision petition assailing his conviction and sentence recorded by both the courts below for offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the Act) in complaint instituted by respondent no. 1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The allegations are usual that cheque of Rs 1,25,000/- issued by the petitioner in favour of the complainant was dishonoured and the petitioner failed to pay the amount to the complainant inspite of requisite demand notice. Stand of the petitioner is that he had given blank signed cheque as security for some loan taken earlier from the complainant. Both the courts below after appreciation of evidence have come to the conclusion that the guilt of the petitioner stands proved. The defence Criminal Revision No. 1382 of 2009 -2- raised by the petitioner was not accepted. If the petitioner had returned the loan amount to the complainant for which the blank signed cheque was allegedly given as security, the petitioner would have taken back the said cheque while repaying the loan. The defence plea has, therefore, been rightly rejected by both the courts below. Even otherwise, such a plea can be raised by any accused in case under section 138 of the Act. On the contrary, there is presumption under section 118 of the Act that the cheque was issued for consideration. There is concurrent finding of the guilt of the petitioner by the courts below based on appreciation of the evidence. The said finding cannot be said to be perverse or illegal in any manner so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. On the other hand evidence cannot be re-appreciated in revision petition so as to upset the concurrent finding of the courts below. In these circumstances, even learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to advance any meaningful argument to assail the finding of conviction. Accordingly, conviction of the petitioner is affirmed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, prayed that sentence of the petitioner be reduced. The prayer has been opposed by learned counsel for the complainant submitting that the complainant has been deprived of the cheque amount as well. On the preceding date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for adjournment to seek instructions if the petitioner would like to pay the cheque amount with some interest even in instalments. Learned counsel for the petitioner after seeking instructions expresses inability of the petitioner to pay the cheque Criminal Revision No. 1382 of 2009 -3- amount. I have carefully considered the matter. Keeping in view the cheque amount and other circumstances and the fact that the complainant has been deprived of the cheque amount altogether, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of imprisonment for one year as imposed by the courts below is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for eight months while maintaining the sentence of fine and sentence in default of payment thereof. It is ordered accordingly. With modification in sentence as aforesaid, the revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( L.N. Mittal ) July 17, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'