IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2618 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 08, 2011 Saminder Singh ...Petitioner Versus Gaurav Saini ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Present: Mr.Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and directed to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of `5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner is further required to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The Appellate Court, however, has been considerate enough to reduce the sentence from two years RI to one year RI. When this revision came up for hearing before this Court, the counsel was given time to have instructions if the petitioner was prepared to return the cheque amount. The counsel, on instructions, says that the petitioner is not in a position to return the cheque amount. Counsel further contends that the petitioner is seriously sick and for that reason he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh for treatment. The petitioner has now been discharged from PGI, Chandigarh. As per the counsel, the Medical Officer has written a communication to Superintendent District Jail that the condition of the petitioner is bad as he needs permanent dialysis facility. On this ground, counsel makes a prayer for release of the petitioner on bail and further says that in case the petitioner after treatment gets well he may be able to arrange the cheque amount as well. Criminal Revision No.2618 of 2011 (O&M) : 2 : As per the prosecution, the petitioner was proprietor of S.P.Export, Shashtri Nagar near Red Building, Ropar. He engaged himself in business of sending persons abroad after accepting the amount. The petitioner allegedly allured the respondent for sending him to Ghana in South Africa by employing him as a Salesman. A sum of `6.00 lacs was demanded. Amount of `4.00 lacs was allegedly received by the petitioner. He failed to keep the promise and did not return the amount as well. The respondent also sent a legal notice and the petitioner admitted receipt of `4.00 lacs from him. In discharge of that liability, he issued cheque bearing No.000728 dated 20.7.2009 for a sum of `1.00 lac and another cheque bearing No.000729 for a sum of `1,50,000/- and yet another cheque No.000730 dated 21.7.2009 for a sum of `1,50,000/- in favour of the respondent. These cheques when presented for encashment, were dishonoured and returned with the remarks “account closed”. For this, the petitioner was prosecuted and has now been convicted. The conviction of the petitioner is based on evidence. There is no cause made out for interfering in the revision petition. The sickness suffered by the petitioner is being looked after by the jail authorities. The Superintendent of Jail is directed to take proper care and would ensure proper medical treatment of the petitioner. It can be noticed that this aspect is apparently being taken care of as the petitioner was brought for treatment to PGI. Unless, his medical condition is certified to be such that it would be detrimental to keep in jail, it would not be appropriate to direct his release on bail when there is no merit in the revision petition. Still, if the petitioner at some stage feels and has a support of medical record, he would be at liberty to approach this court for release on interim bail on health ground by providing proper proof of his sickness and that the same is not capable of being treated well while he is confined in jail. Dismissed. December 08, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE