67 4 1 t IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HANA AT CHANDIGARH CrleRevision Noe3119 of2009 DateofDecision25e7e2010 547ye SukhdevSingh Petitioner Vse 1 MlsGaganAgroChemicals8 Anre r4 ee 0 0 CrleRevision Noe3120 of2009 with 4rR 4t C5 I SukhdevSingh Petitioner 4 Vse Z MlsGaganAgroChemicalsS Anre 0 ee 411 Crle RevisionNoe3134of2009 and oee ek 6iukhdevSingh Petitioner 4 ee V5 Z Vse Lla MlsGaganAgroChemicalsSt Anre ee CORAMl HONBLEMRe JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present2 Mr KK Garg Advocate for the MreBS Sra AddleAGe Punjab MreSurinder Garg Advocate for Nole 5k 14 ARVINDKUMAR Je Thc above referredpetitions are being of by this vW since theparties are same in all thepetitions Brief facts of the case are that M7s GaganAgro ma Uma 2013.03.19 11: 50 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 68 P2 1 e e 2 t ChemicalsKotkapurathroughits Sh Tulsi Dass filed three criminal againstthe petitionerSukhdev Singhand the same were as Crl RT No 71 73 and 90 dated 1 2008 that the used to purchase from the and as suchan amount of Rs8 lacs were outstanding him In order to discharge the the accusedletitionerissued 8differentchequeswith the followingners anddetailslm m Cheque No Dated AmoUnt 302004 Rs 1500001 0 261119 C3 261133 30102004 Rs 1000001 261137 30102004 Rs000 C R000001 261128 30102004 I 261134 30102004 Rs00001m Z 261135 30102004 Rs0001 e 261126 31122004 e 100OOOIeand tI 31122004 Rs 2000001 4 261132 2C e5 The said chequeson presentation were by the Oo bankerof theaccusedon accountofinsufficient81ndsbeingmaintainedby hisaccount vide different memos dated 42005 and 3 the accused111 Z Since the accusedfailed to makethe paymentof the cheques in Om despite issuance of legalnotlce bythe accusedthe No 261126 and 261132 No 73 with regardto dishonouring of No 261119 261133and261137and No 90 in respect No 261128 261134and 261135 On the basis of evidenceled by the to face trial for an offenceunder the was Section138 of the InstrumentsAct for which offence the petitionerwas also servedwithnotice of accusationin all the three 1 to which he pleaded not guiltyandclaimedtrial The again ledits evidenceandon closurethereof of Section313 CrPC was recorded J thestatementof accusedby means he deniedtheallegations and examinedKarajSinghas DW1 1 Uma 2013.03.19 11: 50 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document n 1 69 rS Il 6 3 1 The leamed trial Court afteranalyzingthe evidence on record cameto theconclusion that the has succeededin provingthe guiltof the accusedand sentencedhim years with a flne ofRsl0001 ineach case vide differentjudgnents for two dated1 1 52009 In default ofpaymentoffine lrther for two monthswas imposed ThereaRer preferred three separateappeal 1 andlaid challengeto hisconvictionand sentence imposed in all the three r heard and the leamedAddl SessionsJudgeFaridkot casesThe same were 0 vide 21 112009 passed in all the three 0 andaffirmed the conviction and sentence of the dismissedthe same Z to the institutionofthe revisionpetitions referred C5 herein I to above e On 17122009when therevision petitions came up for hearing Z retumedbyboththe Courtsbelowto thisCourt concurredwith the theextent of convictionof the SukhdevSinghand admittedthe heard learnedcounselfor the partieson the pointof I c6 uantum of sentencee by leamedcounselfor the that It has been a of 2 years awardedto the 1S On excessiveside and Z the sentence has for lenient view He has also prayed that the sentences awarded being relatedto common liability to the in all the three cases and has referredto the decisionof maybe orderedto run ApexCourt in the case ofState ofPunjabVseMadan Lal 2009 RCR CrlJ602 On the other handlearned counsel for the hasprayed thattheflne amount uponthe iS toomeager Thus it has been prayed that the Court shall lean towards paymentof compensation at leastto the value of the cheques in all thethreecases insteadof fine so thatjustice shouldbe done tothe There is force in the contentionraisedby leamed counselfor the In these cases the Magistrateas per his 1 imposed the fineto the maximumlimit of Rs30001 each But e 60I r e Uma 2013.03.19 11: 50 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 70 4 with this flee bite sentence the very purpose of enactingthe provisions underthe Insents Act are What bene8t the m r would have derived with the languishingof the petitioner in 1 jai12The complainant must have been in terms of monetary benefitswho has alreadypartedwith an amount of Rs8 lacs while the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitionerseems to be on higher sideandneedsreduction It is not in and as settledby the Honble ApexCourt in the case of PankajbhaiNagjibhaiPateI Vse State of Gujaratand Anre 0 2001 RCR 343 followed byMadrasHighCourt in the case of Suganthi 0 Suresh Kumar VseJagadeesan 200101RCR Crlel87 that I under Section357639 CrPC can be orderedonlywhen a Cburt imposes a I of which fine does not form a part When once sentence of Sne e has been unless the same is set aside this Court cannot order Ij 2 v beyond Rs0001m Thus in the of for any amount e factsand circumstancesofthe case this Court is ofthe opinionthat L11 lnterest ofjustice would be subserved if the is directedto pay a r ofRs5 lacs in each case to the insteadand place t4 1 0 1 c1 fineof Rs30001 as has been directed by the Courts below The 0 1 t 1 would be entitled to getthe aforementioned sum of Rs 43 lacs 9 Z byway Coming to the pleaof the petitioner with regardto concurrent Q ofsentence in the case ofMadan Lal 6supral in a somewhatsimilar situationthe HonbIeApexCourt had an occasionto deal with the mauer In that Case the accused was convicted ln threeseparate for an offenceunder Section 138 of InstrumentsAct on account of of different chequesthis Court while of the view that all the transactionsrelate to thefamilyof therein orderedthat the sentences upon the accusedin the cases shall run The Honble SupremeCourt while discussing the issue and relying upon the cases of Mohd Akhthar Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti Vse Assistant Collectorof Customs PreventionlAhmadabad 82 Orse AlR 1988 SC 2143 and State of Maharashtra Vse Najakat Mubarak AIi RCR Crle1778 upheldthe view taken by this Court and dismissedtheappealofthe State eveW Uma 2013.03.19 11: 50 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document r 71 J5 rf f 5 9 ra pmh InShafiq Vse State ofMePe 201021RCR Crlel95 there were f decided and so as the appealthe Court followingthe ratio oflaw laiddown in the cases of Mohd Akhtar and Madan Lal pra9 orderedthat the sentence of one year awatdedin both the cases to run In the cases in hand the accusedissued different cheques to the singleliabilityof Rs8 lacs decided so as the and thus there is no legalembargoin orderingthe sentences m Q of discussionabove the sentence of the 0 Thereforein the 0 I allthe three cases which shall run The C5 one yeareach in totalling to RsA3 lacs to the under Section 35739CrPC In the event of Z of in viewofthe dicta laid down in the case of non RCR Crlel 969 the vijayanVs Sadanandan Ke St Anre r I With these the instant revision stand e b of QO 1 a7 Z 1 tl ARVIND KJMARI JUDGE July52010 Jiten 71 V V 1Il 0 5 apvav 9vPe5 4 Uma 2013.03.19 11: 50 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document