Crl. Revision No.2342 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.2342 of 2003 Date of Decision: July 30, 2010 M/s Vishal Trading Co. and another .......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.RS Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. <><><> JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 18.11.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib (hereinafter referred as “Appellate Court”) whereby judgment and order, dated 25.11.2002, passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amloh (hereinafter referred as “Trial Court”) was upheld and the sentence of petitioner Sudarshan Kumar to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.5,000/- for Crl. Revision No.2342 of 2003 -2- the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to “the Act”) and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months was affirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in para 2 of the trial Court judgment, are as under: “M/s Bhushan Steel Industries, G.T.Road, Alour through its Manager Ashok Kumar has brought the instant complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the allegations that the accused persons were having dealing with the complainant firm since 22.9.1995. The accused persons purchased iron material from the complainant firm vide bill No.314 dated 22.9.95 for Rs.2,25,599-63 ps. The accused firm issue cheque of the above said due amount of Rs.2,25,599-63 which was dis- honoured and a complaint was filed in the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna where the parties effected a compromise and the accused persons paid the following amounts: By Cash Rs. 10,000/- on 5.3.97 By Cash Rs.10,000/- on 26.4.97 By Cash Rs.10,000/- on 26.5.97 By Cash Rs.10,000/- on 8.7.97 The complainant firm is doing its business by maintaining regular books of account. Later on, the accused owed Rs.1,85,599-63 ps after adjusting Rs.40,000/- out of the due amount. On 9.12.97, the accused firm issued cheque No.597919 dated 9.12.97 for Rs.1,85,599-63 ps drawn on Crl. Revision No.2342 of 2003 -3- Punjab National Bank, Branch Mandi Gobindgarh in order to discharge their liability. The cheque was presented through Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Mandi Gobindgarh on the assurance of the accused persons on 26.12.97, but, however, the Bank returned the cheque with memo of Punjab National Bank, Mandi Gobindgarh and covering letter of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mandi Gobindgarh with remarks “Insufficient Funds”, which means that the accused were not having sufficient funds in their account at the relevant time. The complainant firm issued notice through their counsel Sh.Tejwant Singh, Advocate, Amloh on 1.1.98 demanding a sum of Rs.1,85,599-63 ps from the accused persons as per provisions of law and the notices were sent through registered post and U.P.C. at the proper address of accused Nos.1 to 3, which were received by them in ordinary course. The accused persons have failed to pay the disputed amount even after receipt of the notices and thus have committed an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.” 3. The accused-petitioners were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Act to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as four witnesses, viz., Anjni Kumar, Computer Operator, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mandi Gobindgarh as PW1; Diwan Singh, Clerk-cum-Cashier, Punjab National Bank, Mandi Gobindgarh as PW2; Sadhu Ram Singhi as PW3; and Dalbir Singh, Typist Amloh as PW4. Crl. Revision No.2342 of 2003 -4- 5. Statements of the accused-petitioners were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which petitioner Sudarshan Kumar denied the allegations and pleaded his false implication. In his defence, the accused-petitioners examined Inderpreet Singh, Copying Clerk to the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amloh as DW1. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioners for a term as noticed in para 1 of this judgment. The conviction was challenged by filing appeal before Sessions Court which was dismissed vide judgment dated 18.11.2003. Hence this revision petition. 7. The present revision petition was admitted on 24.11.2003 and the petitioners were ordered to be released on bail. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the finding of the learned Courts below and confines his submission to the question of quantum of sentence only and has prayed that sentence awarded by the Trial Court be reduced to the period already undergone. 9. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that no leniency should be shown to the petitioners. 10. From the record, it is made out that the complaint in the instant case was instituted on 28.1.1998. Thus, the petitioner Sudarshan Kumar has suffered a protracted trial for more than 12 years and he has already undergone sentence for about one week. 11. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and in the facts and circumstances and, particularly, the protracted trial of more than 12 years and keeping in view the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for speedy trial, I am Crl. Revision No.2342 of 2003 -5- of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and, in addition thereto, the sentence of fine is enhanced. 12. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act is maintained. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.1 lac over and above the fine imposed by learned Trial Court which shall be deposited in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib within three months from today. Out of the enhanced fine of Rs.1 lac, an amount of Rs.90,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation and an amount of Rs.10,000/- shall go to the State as litigation expenses. In case, the petitioner fails to comply with the direction of depositing the amount of fine in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib within period stipulated above, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. 13. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed and the judgment/order of the Appellate Court dated 18.11.2003 and that of the Trial Court dated 25.11.2002 on the point of sentence are modified to the extent indicated above. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) July 30, 2010 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No