Criminal Revision No. 771 of 2001 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 771 of 2001 Date of Decision: 6.3.2009 Maha Lakshmi Traders and Another …Petitioners Versus M/s Amrit Sons …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Baldev Raj Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Case of the complainant before the Courts below was that he had given a loan of Rs.50,000/- to accused on 31.5.1996. In discharge of the loan, accused had issued a cheque dated 30.3.1997. The cheque was presented and the payment was refused by the Bank vide memo dated 30.5.1997 on account that payment has been stopped by the drawer. Petitioner was convicted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, and sentenced to one year imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-. The Appellate Court reduced the sentence to six months and fine was reduced to Rs.25,000/-. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that infact the loan was returned by earlier cheque dated 4.12.1996 which was encashed by the complainant. Therefore, the second cheque Ex.PA which had bounced Criminal Revision No. 771 of 2001 2 was not for discharge of any liability. Counsel states that by issuance of cheque Ex.DW.1/A dated 4.12.1996, liability, if any, stood discharged. Two Courts below have appreciated this contention and held the same to be untenable, holding that by issuance of cheque, presumption operate against the petitioner as cheque was supposedly issued for discharge of liability. A feeble attempt has been made by counsel for the petitioner to say that the presumption has been wrongly drawn by the two Courts below. This Court in a revision petition cannot do re-appraisal or re- appreciation of the evidence. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner has stated that the cheque was issued in the year 1997. About 12 years are going to elapse. Therefore, petitioner has already suffered protracted trial and by sending him behind the bars no useful purpose will be served. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that complainant can be compensated for the amount of cheque. Accordingly, sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced to already undergone. However, the amount of fine is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. The amount of fine shall be disbursed to the complainant. In case, the fine is not deposited, the benefit in reduction of sentence shall not accrue to the petitioner. With the observations made above, the present petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 6, 2009 “DK”