70 1 9 41 14 1 J IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl Revision No 3119 of2009 DateofDecisionl 571010 ktR SukhdevSingh Petitioner Vse r Mls GaganAgroChemicals 8 Anr eeRespondents 0 0 with CrIeRevision Noe3120 of2009 I kee C5 I Sukhdev Singh Petitioner Z Vse m Mls GaganAgro Chemicals 8i Anre C eeRcspondents I and CrIeRevision No 3134 of2009 08 39k R co Sukhdev Singh Pctitioner 7 Z Vse Nlls GaganAgroChemicals St Anre Respondents CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present2 Mr KeKeGarg Advocate for the petitioncr Mr BS Sra AddIeAG Punjab Mr Surinder Garg Advocate for respondentNo1 SSS ARVIND KUMAR J Thc above referred petitions are beingdisposedof by this 1A common judgment since theparties are same in all thepetitions Bricf facts of the case are that Mls GaganAgro Uma 2013.03.19 11: 26 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 71 ll 4 rA 2 Cheinicals throughits Sh Tulsi Dass flled three criminal against the SukhdevSinghand the saine were as Crl RT No 71 73 and 90 dated 1 72008 that the used to from the and as such an amount of Rs8 lacs were against him In orderto theIiabilitytheaccusedoetitionerissued 8 differentcheques with thefollowing numbersand detailsl Cheque No Dated Amount 0 261119 30102004 Rs 1500001 C 261133 30 102004 Rs 1000001 I 261137 30102004 Rs0001 9 261128 30102004 Rs1000001 I 261134 30102004 Rs0001 Z 261135 30102004 Rs0001 a 261126 31122004 Rs 1000001 and r 261132 31122004 Rs 2000001 I 08 The said cheques on presentatlonwere dishonoured by the m bankerof the accused on account of insufficient funds beingmaintainedby eeo the accused lll his account vide different memos dated 4 2005 and Z 282005 Sincethe accused failed to make the paymentof the cheques IIl questiondespite lssuance of legalnotlce by the accused the preferred threeseparatecomplaint No 1 as aforesaidin respectof No 261126and 261 132 complaint No 73 with regard to of cheques No 261119 261133 and 261137 and No 90 in respect On the basisof evidence led by the the accusedoetitioner was summoned to face trial for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable InstrumentsAct for which offence the petitionerwas also served with notice of accusation in all the three to which he pleaded not guiltyand claimed trial The againled its evidence and on closure thereof the statement of accused by means of Section 313 CrPC was recorded 111 whereinhe deniedthe allegations and exaininedKarajSinghas DW1 Uma 2013.03.19 11: 26 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 72 e1 1 3 The Iearned trial Court after the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the has succeededin proving the guiltof the accusedand sentencedhim rigorous for two yearswith a 6ne ofRs20001 ln each case vide datedl l 3009 In default offine further for two monthswas Thereafter three separateappeal andlaid challenge to his convictionand sentence imposedin all the three r cases Thesame were heardand the learnedAddl SessionsJudgeFaridkot 0 dated21112009 passed in allthe threeappeals C dismissed the same and affirmed the conviction and sentence of the I C5 herein leading to the institut i on ofthe revisionpetitions referred to above On 17 122009 when the revision petitions came up for hearing Z this Court concurred with the findingsreturnedbyboth the Couits below to r theextent of conviction of the SukhdevSinghand admittedthe revisionpetitions to the extent of ofsentence alone I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the pointof 08 quantum ofsentence 10 It has been contendedbyIearnedcounsel for the that 3 Z the sentence of 2 years awardedto the is on excessiveside and hasprayedfor lenient view He has also prayedthat the sentencesawarded to the petitioner in all the three cases beingrelated to common liability maybe ordered to run and has referred to the decision of Honble ApexCourt in the case ofState ofPunjabVs Madan Lal 2009 RCR Crl1 602 On the other hand learned counsel for the hasprayedthat the fine amount uponthe petitioner is too meager Thus it has been prayedthat the Court shall lean towards orderingpaymentof at least to the value of the cheques involved in all the threecases insteadoffine so thatjustice should be done to the There is considerableforce in the contention raised by learned counsel for the ln these cases the Magistrateas per his jurisdictionimposed the flne to the maximum limit of Rs30001 each But Uma 2013.03.19 11: 26 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 73 1 1 1 4 9 with this flee bitesentence the very purpose of the underthe lnstrumentsAct are totallydefeatedWhat bene6tthe would have derivedwith the of the 111 jai12The must havebeen in terms of monetary benefitswho has alreadypartedwith an alnount of Rs8 lacs while the sentence of awardedto the petitioner seemsto be on higher sideandneedsreduction 1 It is not in and as settledbythe Honble ApexCourt lll C the case of Pankajbhai NagjibhaiPatel Vs State of Gujaratand Anre 0 2001 RCR 343 followedbyMadras HighCourt in the case of Suganthi 0 Suresh Kumar Vs 200131RCR Crlol87 that c under Section 357639 Cr can be orderedonlywhen a Court imposes a I sentenceof which fine does not forln a part When once sentenceof flne has been imposedunless the same is set aside this Court cannot order Z payinentof for any amount beyond Rs0001e Thus in the facts and circumstancesofthe case this Court is ofthe opinion that r interest ofjustice would be subserved if the is directed to pay a I ofRs 13 lacs in each case to the insteadand place 08 of a fine of Rs30001 as has been directed by the Courts below The r would be entitledto getthe aforeinentionedsum ofRs 43 lacs m7 Z byway of Coming to the pleaof the with regard to concurrent Ll runningofsentencein the case ofMadan Lal lpra in a somewhatsimilar Situatlon the Honble ApexCourthad an occasion to deal with the matter In that case the accused was convicted in three separate for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable InstrumentsAct on account of of different chequesthis Court while of the view that all the transactlons relate to the familyof therein orderedthat the sentences imposed upon the accusedin the cases shall run The Honble Supreme Court while discussingthe issue and relyingupon the cases of Mohd Akhthar lbrahim Ahmed Bhatti Vse Assistant Collector of Customs PreventionlAhmadabad Ors AIR 1988 SC 2143 and State of Maharashtra Vse Najakat Mubarak Ali 2001 21 RCR CrI1 778 upheldthe VleW taken by this Court and disinissedthe appealofthe State Uma 2013.03.19 11: 26 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 74 1 5 1 1 InShafiqVs StateofMeP 201021RCR Crl1 95 therewere two filed same daybythesame against theaccused decided and so as the appealthe Court followingthe ratio of law laid down in thecases of Mohd Akhtar and Madan Lal orderedthat the sentence of one year awardedin both the cases to run ln the cases in hand the accusedissueddifferent to the singleliabilityof Rs8 lacs decided so as the and thus there is no legal in orderingthe SentenceS awarded to the in all thethreecases to run 0 Thereforein the lightof discussionabove the sentence of the C is modifiedandthe sentence of periodis reducedto I oneyear each in all the three cases which shall run The 9 shallpay the ofRs5 lacs in eachcase totalling to I RsA5 lacs to the under Section357039 CrO In the event of Z 11011 of in view ofthedicta laid down in the case of VijayanVs Sadanandan K Anr 200921RCR 969 the Q shall further for threemonthsin eachcase With these observationsthe instant revision petitions stand Oll of OO Copyofthis order be placedin theconnectedrevision petitions n7 1 Z l ARVIND KUMAR JUDGE July52010 Jiten L 4 V Osu 14 0 5 Uma 2013.03.19 11: 26 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document