Criminal Revision No.2125 of 2003 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.2125 of 2003(O&M) Decided on : May 14, 2009 Ramesh Kumar ... Petitioner VERSUS Gurbachan Singh Chhabra ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.PPS Duggal, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 2.8.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur dismissing the appeal of the accused/ petitioner (herein referred as `petitioner') against the judgment dated 25.9.2001 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur and maintaining the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner to discharge his financial liability towards the complainant/respondent (herein referred as `respondent') issued Cheque No.915579 dated 17.10.1998 for a sum of Rs.56,000/-, which on Criminal Revision No.2125 of 2003 [ 2 ] presentation by the complainant was dishonoured with the remarks “Exceeds Arrangements”. After completing the formal notices, etc, the complaint was filed, wherein, the petitioner was convicted and punished as referred to above. His appeal also failed. Today, before arguing the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and the respondent. In this regard, he has also placed on record the compromise effected between the parties, according to which the petitioner has returned the whole amount to the respondent. Further, learned counsel citing the compromise has left the petitioner on the mercy of the Court for taking a lenient view in the quantum of sentence. Even otherwise, both the courts below have taken the consistent view and convicted the petitioner for the offence. Nothing material could be elicited from the record, which may impel this court to differ with the findings of fact, concurrently recorded by both the courts below. Hence, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. Records reveal that the occurrence is of the year 1999 and the amount involved in the Cheque, has been paid by the petitioner to the respondent. Moreover the petitioner has also undergone more than three months of the sentence and has been suffering the agony due to protracted proceedings since long. On conspectus of the entire evidence, this court feels that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment is reduced Criminal Revision No.2125 of 2003 [ 3 ] to that already undergone by the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. However, the fine clause shall remain intact. Copy of the judgment be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned for compliance. May 14, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE