Crl. Rev. No. 1039 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.1039 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.7.2009 M/s Jodhpur Brick Kiln through its ...Petitioners partners Kewal Singh and Gurmit Singh Versus Piara Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate, for the petitioners. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioners Kewal Singh and Gurmit Singh have been convicted by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patti under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. They preferred an appeal against the conviction/sentence order dated 5th September, 2005 and Piara Singh also filed appeal for enhancement of sentence awarded to them before the court of Sessions at Tarn Taran. The Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, after appraising the evidence, upheld the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioners by passing a common judgment dated 6.3.2009. The instant Criminal Revision petition has been preferred to set-aside the judgment dated 6.3.2009, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran and judgment/order dated 5.9.2005, passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patti. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he is limiting his prayer only to the extent of reduction in the sentence awarded and Crl. Rev. No. 1039 of 2009 2 does not assail the judgment of conviction. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Kewal Singh and Gurmit Singh, petitioners herein, being partners of M/s Jodhpur Brick Kiln had issued a cheque on 1st July, 2000 for an amount of Rs.5,90,000/- in favour of the complainant. The said cheque bounced when it was presented in the bank. The petitioners did not make payment of the said amount and as such, a complaint was filed in the Court. To substantiate its case, the complainant examined two witnesses and he also appeared in the witness box. The statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein the incriminating evidence available on record was put to them. They denied the same and pleaded innocence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the petitioners were guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Accordingly, both the petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each. On a perusal of the judgments, I am of the considered view that the courts below have correctly arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners were guilty of the offence alleged against them. The conviction of the petitioners is, thus, affirmed. Even counsel for the petitioners during the course of Crl. Rev. No. 1039 of 2009 3 arguments, has not assailed the judgment of conviction. He has however, pleaded for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the petitioners are the first offenders, they are having their family to look after and have already faced the agony of protracted trial for a number of years. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that the petitioners are first offenders, sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to nine months. However, fine imposed, shall remain intact. Except with modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated herein above, the revision petition is dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE July 14, 2009 'rajpal'