CRR No. 290 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRR No. 290 of 2009 Date of decision: 26.04.2011 Hardwari Lal ........ Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Sat Narain Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sidrath Sarup, DAG, Haryana for the respondent - State Mr. Sharad Yadav, Advocate for respondent No. 2 -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a revision against the order dated 28.01.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, dismissing the appeal as well as the judgment dated 18.01.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rewari, convicting the petitioner for a period of six months under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and also directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant within a period of two months. While issuing notice of motion, this Court vide order dated 04.02.2009 had recorded the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was ready to deposit the entire amount of the alleged bounced cheque. CRR No. 290 of 2009 2 Meanwhile, the petitioner has deposited the entire amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as directed by the trial Court. In fact, Rs.75,000/- which was deposited as the Ist installment before the trial Court by the petitioner, has been released to the respondent/complainant on an application moved by him. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the judgments passed by the both the Courts below, there is no ground to interfere in the well reasoned judgment dated 18.01.2008 passed by the trial Court. As such, the present revision petition is dismissed and the orders passed by the Courts below convicting the petitioner are upheld. At the stage, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submitted that he has instructions to state that respondent No. 2 has no objection if the petitioner is released on probation, in case, the balance amount i.e. Rs.25,000/- is released to him. Thus, taking into account the statement made by learned counsel for respondent No. 2 as above coupled with the fact that the petitioner has already deposited the entire amount and has also undergone 24 days of the sentence, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified and the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation for the remaining period of sentence under Section 4 (i) of the Probation of Offender Act, 1958 on the terms and conditions imposed by the trial Court. `25,000/- which is the balance amount already deposited by the petitioner before the trial Court is ordered to be released to respondent No. 2 forthwith. Disposed of in the above terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 26.04.2011 mohan