Criminal Revision No.1446 of 2004 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No.1446 of 2004 Date of Decision: 29.4.2009 Mandheer Singh …Petitioner Versus G.S. Bhullar …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Present revision petition has been preferred by Mandheer Singh son of Mohan Singh, Proprietor M/s Glass Care Rubber Industries, Opposite Amar Fabrics, Bye-pass G.T. Road, Jalandhar. Petitioner was tried in a complaint filed by G.S. Bhullar, respondent, resident of 5/5 PSEB Colony, Jalandhar. In the complaint, it was stated by the complainant/respondent that accused/petitioner Mandheer Singh had approached him and borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- in the month of August 1998 and in lieu of the discharge of liability, petitioner had issued a cheque bearing No. 000471 dated 17.8.1998 for Rs.2,25,000/- drawn on Union Bank of India, Chaugithi, Jalandhar. An assurance was given by the accused/petitioner that Criminal Revision No.1446 of 2004 2 cheque will be encashed on presentation. When the cheque was presented it was returned by the banker of the complainant with remark “Exceeds Arrangements”. Grievance of the complainant was that cheque bounced because of insufficiency of funds. Complainant led preliminary evidence. Accused was summoned to stand trial. In support of his case, complainant examined himself as PW.1 and examined Rajinder Singh, Clerk-cum-Cashier, Union Bank of India Chaugithi, Jalandhar, as PW.2. Trial Court found that in the present case ingredients of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) are complete; found petitioner guilty of offence under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Petitioner being aggrieved, filed an appeal. The Appellate Court appraised the evidence and agreed with the findings of the trial Court and had dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to formulate any question of law or point out any patent illegality or irregularity which warrant interference by this Court. The revisional Court cannot re-appreciate and re-evaluate the evidence. Witnesses have been believed that the cheque was issued as loan was advanced to the accused/petitioner by the complainant. Date of presentation of cheque being a matter of record, has been also taken into consideration. The argument that there was an over-writing on the Criminal Revision No.1446 of 2004 3 cheque was also negated as the over-writing was initialled by the accused/petitioner. At this stage, Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner has stated that cheque in question was issued in the year 1998 and petitioner has suffered protracted trial of 11 years. He has stated that protracted trial be taken as mitigating circumstance and sentence be adequately reduced. Counsel for the petitioner has further stated that the petitioner was taken into custody on 14.7.2004 and he was ordered to be released on bail by this Court on 17.12.2004. Counsel has further submitted that petitioner has undergone sentence of about five months and his sentence be reduced to already undergone. I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to benefit of protracted trial as same is construed as a mitigating circumstance and hence, sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced from one year to six months and sentence of fine is being maintained. With these observations, the present revision petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge April 29, 2009 “DK”