IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1149 of 1999 Date of Decision 15.01.2010 Moti Ram Bhatia ...... Petitioner(s) VERSUS Smt.Meena Bhatia and another ...... Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.R.S.Sihota, Senior Advocate, with Mr.B.R.Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Vikas Kumar, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): The case relates to the dishonour of cheque dated 13.09.1991, worth Rs.75,000/-, issued by Moti Ram Bhatia, petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the accused') in favour of Meena Bhatia complainant-respondent (herein referred as 'the complainant') in lieu of the legally dischargeable liability, therefore, he was convicted and sentenced under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act vide judgment dated 23.01.1999, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed. The cheque was issued by the accused on 30.09.1991. The complainant deposited the said cheque in her saving bank account No.9636 with Bank of Baroda and the same was returned unpaid vide endorsement dated 25.10.1991 alongiwht memo of UCO Bank dated 25.10.1991. The complainant issued the registered notice on 09.11.1991 which was received by the accused on 11.11.1991 vide A.D. receipt Ex.P2 but no payment was made, which was followed by a complaint. After recording the preliminary evidence, the accused was summoned for the aforesaid offence. Upon notice, he was served with notice on 15.07.1994 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Criminal Revision No.1149 of 1999 -2- In order to substantiate the charges, the complainant examined herself (CW2), Hari Ram son of Chajju Ram(CW1), and Satish Arora (CW3). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication in the case. The complaint resulted in conviction. His appeal was also dismissed. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, the accused has thrown himself to the mercy of the Court stating that he is too old to bear the litigation and offers to pay Rs.75,000/- (i.e. cheque amount) alongwith Rs.50,000/- more within six months and prays for taking a lenient view in the matter. Besides the plea bargaining by the accused-petitioner, I have scrutinized the evidence. The same appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Accused, present in Court, appears to be 70 years old and he has already undergone about 10 days of substantive sentence. It may further be noticed that the accused-petitioner is respondent's husband's brother-in-law (Jija). The cheque was issued as far back on 30.09.1991., as such he has suffered lot of agony due to protracted proceedings for the last 19 years, therefore, it would not be in the fitness of things to send him to imprisonment again, particularly when he is ready to compensate the complainant. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone. However, the petitioner is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.75,000/- today with the Registry and would pay lump-sum amount of Rs.50,000/-, more on account of interest before the trial Court within 6 months from today, failing which the said amount shall be recovered as fine from him and would be paid to the respondent. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 15.01.2010 mamta-II