68 41 r 1 1 P 4 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1 CrL Revision Noe 31190f2009 4t 7t Sukhdev Singh Petitioner Vse 1 0 Mls GaganAgro Chemicals Anre eeRespondents 0 0 with CrleRevision Noe3120of 2009 Ic 9 I SukhdevSingh e Petitioner Z Vse Mls GaganAgro Chemicals 8LAnre tt e Respondents and Crl Revision Noe3134of2009 06 4rR R CQ e Sukhdev Singh Petitioner V7 Z Vse Llw Mls GaganAgroChemicals Anre Respondents CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present2 Mr ICK Garg Advocate for the Mr BS Sra Addle AeG Punjab Mr Surinder Garg Advocate for respondcnt Noe1e kRR ARVIND KUMAR Je Thc above referredpetitions are beingdisposedof by this V14 since theparties are same in all thepetitions Brieffacts of the case are that Mls GaganAgro e m 1 Anita 2013.03.25 13: 25 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document r m e 1 2 7 Chemicals Kotkapurathroughits proprietorSh Tulsi Dass filed three separate criminal complaintsagainstthe petitionerSukhdev Singhand the same were registeredas Crl ComplaintRT No 71 73 and 90 dated 1 2008 complainingthat the petitionerused to purchasepesticidesSom the complainantand as such an amount of Rs8 lacs were outstanding againsthim In order to discharge the liabilitythe accusedoetitioner issued 8 different chequeswith the followingners and detailsl CL ChequeNo Dated Amount 0 261119 30102004 Rs 1500001 C0 261133 30102004 Rs 100000 I 261137 30102004 Rs0001 C5 261128 30102004 R000001 I 261134 30102004 Rs00001 Z 261135 3002004 Rs000 261126 31122004 Rs 1000001nd 261132 31122004 Rs 2000001 Z Ct5 The said chequesOll presentatlOllwere dishonoured by the Cl bankerof the accused on account of insufOcient 81ndsbeingmaintainedby e the accused in his account vide different memos dated 412005 and Z 282005 Since the accusedfailed to makethe paymentofthe cheques in m questiondespite 1SSUance of legalnotice bythe accused the threeseparatecomplaint No71 as aforesaidin respectofcheques No261126 and261132 complaint No 73 with regard to dishonouring of No 261119 261133 and 261137and No 90 in respect On the basis of evidenceled by the the was summoned to face trial for an offence under Section 138 of the Instruments Act for which offence the petltionerwas also served with notice of accusation in a1l the three to which he pleaded not guiltyand claimedtrial The againled its evidenceand on closurethereof thestatement of accusedby means of Section313 CrPC WaS reCorded V wherein he deniedtheallegations and examinedKarajSinghas DW e t S 9 Anita 2013.03.25 13: 25 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9 1 d 70 f7 e t e4 3 r The learned trial Court cameto the conclusion that the complainanthas succeeded in provingthe guiltof the accused and accordinglysentenced him rigorousimprisonment J for two years with a fine ofRsl0001m in each case vide dated 112009 In default ofpaymentoffine furtherimprisonment for two months was imposed Thereafter preferredthree separateappeal m and laid challengeto his COnVlctlon and sentence imposedin all the three r cases The same were heardand the learnedAddl SessionsJudgeFwidkot 0 vide dated21 112009 passedseparately in all the threeappeals 0 dismissed the same and affirmed the conviction and sentence of the I 0 petitioner herein leadingto the institutionof the revision petitionsrefened to above On 17122009 when the revisionpetiti6ns came up for hearing Z t this Court concurred with the findingsretumedbyboth the Courts below to C the extent of conviction of the petitionerSukhdevSinghand admittedthe e revisionpetitions to the extent ofquanwmofsentence alone I I have heard leamed counsel for the partieson the pointof 06 quantum of sentence CQ It has been contendedbyleamedcounsel for the that W2 Z the sentence of 2 years awardedto the petitioner is on excessive side and hasprayedfor lenient view He has also prayedthat the sentences awarded CL to the petitioner in all the three case beingrelated to common liability may be ordered to run concurrentlyand has referred to the decision of Honble ApexCourt in the case ofState ofPunjab Vs Madan Lal 200929 RCR CrlJ 602e On the other hand leamed counsel for the has prayedthat the fine amount imposed upon thepetitioneris too meager Thus it has been prayed that the Court shall lean towards ordering paymentof at least to the value of the cheques involvedin all the threecases insteadof fine so thatjusticeshouldbe done to thecomplainant Thereis considerableforce in the contentionraised by leamed counselfor the In these cases the Magistrateas per his imposed the flne to the maximumlimit ofRs50000 each But ee rV W 1 Anita 2013.03.25 13: 25 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 71 4 with this flee bite sentence the very purposeof enactingthe provisions under the NegotiableInstruments Act are totallyriefeated What benefit the rWr7 complainant would have derived with the languishingof the petitioner111 jai17The complainant must have been ln tenns of monetary beneflts who has alreadypartedwith an amount of Rs8 lacs while the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitionerseems to be on higher side and needs reduction m It is not in disputeand as settledbythe Honble ApexCourt in tr the case of PankajbhaiNagjibhaiPatel Vse State of Gujaratand Anre 0 20011 RCR 343 followed by MadrasHighCourt in the case ofSuganthi C Suresh Kumar Vse Jagadeesan200101RCR Crle187 that C under Section 357639 CrPC can be orderedonlywhen a Court imposes a 11 scntence of which fine does not form a part When once sentence of 8ne 4 has been imposedunless the same is set aside this Court cannot order Z paymentof for any amount beyondRs50001 Thus in the 1 peculiar factsand circumstancesofthe case this Coun is ofthe opinionthat t interest ofjusticewould be subserved ifthe petitioner is directedto pay a r compensation ofRs5 lacs in each case to therespondent insteadandplace 1 08 of a fine of Rs30001 as has been directed by the Courts below The 1 OO 9 4 would be entitledto getthe aforementioned sum of Rs 43 lacs 1 7 Z byway of Comingto the pleaof the petitioner with regard to concurrent Il running ofsentence in the case ofMadan Lal 6supralin a somewhatsimilar Sltuatioll the Honble ApexCourt had an occasionto deal with the mauer In that case the accused was convicted in three separate for an offence under Section 138 of InstrumentsAct on account of of different chequesthis Court while of the view that all the transactions relate to the familyof therein orderedthat the sentences imposed upon the accusedin the cases shall run The Honble SupremeCourt while discussing the issue and relyingupon the cases of Mohde Akhthar Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti Vse Assistant CoIIector of Customs PreventionlAhmadabad 8i Orse AIR 1988 SC 2143 and State of Maharashtra Vs Najakat Mubarak Ali 200121RCR Crlel 778 upheldthe View taken by this Court and dismissedthe appeal ofthe State 1 949a ale l Imee e e Anita 2013.03.25 13: 25 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document f 72 1 F 8 2 r 5 pe 1 i In ShaflqVsState ofMePe 201021RCR Crlel95 there were 4 two complaints filed same dayby the same complainantagainstthe accused 49 decided and so as the appealthe Court followingthe ratio of Iaw laid down lll the cases of Mohd Akhtar and Madan Lal supral ordered that the sentence of one year awarded in both the cases to run concurrentlyIn the cases in hand the accused issued different chequesto dischargethe singleliabilityof Rs8 lacs decided so as the 1 appealand thus there lS no legalembargo 111orderingthe sentences r awardedto thepetitioner in all the three cases to run concunently 0 Therefore in the lightof discussion above the sentenceof the C petitioner is modified and the sentence is reducedto one year each in all the three cases which shall run concunentlyThe C5 V I shall pay the ofRs5 lacs in each case totalling to 4 RsA5 lacsto the under Section CrPC In the event of Z non paymentof in View ofthe dicta laid down in the case of VijayanVs Sadanandan K 82 Anre 200921RCR e1e9 969 the tr C pelitioner shall furtherundergo for threemonthsin each case m With these observations the instant revlSlon petitionsstand 08 disposed of OO e Copyofthis order beplacedin thecomectedrevision petitions a 1 Z 1 Llm ARVIND ElJPVIARI JUDGE July52010 Jiten C 1 99 vIl e7 0 5 1 6rW2I4 Anita 2013.03.25 13: 25 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document