Criminal Revision No. 2391 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2391 of 2009 Date of Decision: 25.03.2010 V.K. Duggal sonof Sh. D.N. Duggal, r/o H. No. 1412, Sector 61, Chandigarh. ... Revision-Petitioner Versus 1. Harvinder Singh son of Sh. Hansa Singh, r/o H. No. 428, Phase 9, Mohali, District Mohali. 2. Shan Industries through its authorized signatory Harvinder Singh, H. No. 428, Phase 9, Mohali, District Mohali. 3. State of Punjab. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No. 3 – State. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition is directed against the judgement dated 16.07.09, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, for enhancement of sentence and amount of compensation. Criminal Revision No. 2391 of 2009 2 2. The facts, in brief, are that, Kuljinder Singh, brother of respondent No.1, was the tenant of the complainant/revision-petitioner. It was stated that, respondent No. 1, issued cheque bearing No. 100626 dated 14.08.06, in the sum of Rs. 6,000/-, drawn on HDFC Bank, Phase X, Mohali, in favour of the complainant, towards the part payment of rent. However, when the cheque, was presented for encashment, the same, was dishounoured, on 17.08.06, with the remarks 'Funds Insufficient'. It was further stated that, on the request of respondent No. 1, the cheque, was again, presented for encashment, but, was dishonoured, on 29.08.06, on account of insufficient funds. It was further stated that, thereafter, a legal notice dated 27.09.06, was served upon the accused, by the complainant, calling upon him to make the payment of the dishonoured cheque, within 15 days, but to no avail. Ultimately, the aforesaid complaint was filed. 3. After recording the preliminary evidence, the trial Court, summoned the accused, for the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be called as the 'Act' only). 4. On his appearance, in the Court, notice containing the sum and substance of the complaint, was issued, to the accused, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial. 5. The complainant, in support of his case, examined Rashwinder Singh, Senior Clerk, Chandigarh State Cooperative Bank, Sector 61, Chandigarh (CW1), Gagan (CW2), and himself appeared, in the witness box, as (CW3). Thereafter, he closed his evidence. Criminal Revision No. 2391 of 2009 3 6. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the evidence. He pleaded false implication. It was stated by him that the cheque, in question, was given, by him, to the complainant as security and had not returned the same to him. It was further stated by him that he had already paid the entire amount, to the complainant, in the presence of witnesses. He, however, did not lead any evidence, in defence, and closed the same. 7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted the accused, for the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the Act, and sentenced him accordingly. 8. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal, was preferred, by the appellant (now respondent No. 1), which was partly accepted, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali. 9. Feeling dissatisfied, the instant revision-petition, has been filed, by the revision-petitioner. 10. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 11. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that the amount of the cheque, which was dishonoured was Rs. 6,000/-. He further submitted that the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, SAS Nagar, Mohali, vide judgement dated 29.04.08, convicted respondent No. 1, for the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the Act, and Criminal Revision No. 2391 of 2009 4 sentenced him, to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of 06 months, and, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and, in default of payment thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of 15 days. He further submitted that the Appellate Court, reduced the sentence to 03 months, without any rhyme or reason, and even the amount of compensation, awarded to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- was meagre. He further submitted that, since the substantive sentence, awarded by the Appellate Court, is incommensurate with the guilt of the accused/respondent No. 1, and the amount of compensation, awarded, is also on the lower side, the same be enhanced. 12. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The Appellate Court, after taking into consideration, all the facts and circumstances, as also the evidence, on record, was of the considered opinion, that the ends of justice, would be met, if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 06 months, awarded by the trial Court, was reduced to rigorous imprisonment, for a period of 03 months. The substantive sentence, awarded by the Appellate Court, by no stretch of imagination, could be said to be on the lower side or incommensurate with the guilt of the accused/respondent No. 1. Even the amount of compensation, awarded, could not be said to be too meagre, to warrant the enhancement thereof. It was not at all necessary for the Appellate Court, to impose the maximum sentence, provided for the offence, punishable under Section Criminal Revision No. 2391 of 2009 5 138 of the Act. The discretion, exercised by the Appellate Court, cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be illegal or arbitrary. The revision-petition, is, thus, liable to be dismissed. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed. 25.03.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE