Criminal Revision No.2192 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2192 of 2005 Date of Decision 06.12.2010 Sant Kumar Jain ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and another ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Sachin Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1-State. Mr.Rajeshwar Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: The petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 25.11.2005, vide which the Appellate Court at Jagadhri, dismissed the appeal against the judgment dated 06/07.07.2004, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity 'the Act') and to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation to the complainant-respondent No.2 (herein referred as 'the complainant'). The allegations against the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') are that he, in order to discharge his outstanding liability, issued three post dated cheques bearing Nos.444913 dated 12.10.1998, 444914 dated 12.11.1998 and 444915 dated 12.12.1998 amounting to Rs.19,200/-, Rs.19600/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively in favour of the Criminal Revision No.2192 of 2005 2 complainant but when the said cheques were presented with the bank, the same were dishonoured with the remakrs 'insufficient funds'. Notice issued by the complainant not responded, therefore, he preferred a complaint. After recording the preliminary evidence, he was summoned and on appearance, notice of accusation was issued to him to which he denied as incorrect. The complainant led further evidence. The petitioner was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Opportunity to lead defence was also given. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Arguments heard and record perused. No merit could be found in the contentions. The record transpires that the evidence, as examined by the complainant, has been appreciated in the right perspective. I need not delve deep to appreciate the evidence any further in view of the fact that both the Courts below have returned the findings of fact regarding the guilt of the petitioner. As such, no interference could be made at this revisional stage. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, the counsel has urged that the amount, relating to cheques, has already been deposited, as referred to in the order dated 15.12.2005 and the petitioner is ready to pay compensation as awarded by the trial Court. He has already undergone seventeen days of the substantive sentence, therefore, some leniency may be shown to him qua the quantum of sentence. Heard. The petitioner is an old man; suffered heart strokes three times and remained hospitalized. He has already paid the entire amount, involved in the cheques and is now ready to pay compensation as ordered by the trial Court. No such bad antecedents have been brought on Criminal Revision No.2192 of 2005 3 record to enable this Court to dub him as habitual offender. Under the peculiar circumstances of the present case, it would not be in the fitness of things to send him to imprisonment again. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to the extent that he be released on probation under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his executing a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, for a period of one year within which period he shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, he would be ready to serve sentence as and when called for, subject to the condition that the petitioner would deposit the compensation before the trial Court within three months from today with the notice to complainant, failing which he would serve the remaining part of sentence, as awarded by the Courts below. Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 06.12.2010 mamta-II