Crl.R. No.441 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: Crl.R. No.441 of 2004 DATE OF DECISION: May 18, 2009 SANT KUMAR JAIN ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. PRESENT: MR. SACHIN MITTAL, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. RAHUL RATHORE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.2. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) The petitioner has impugned the judgement of both the Courts below vide which he was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to a pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 2 months. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not wish to challenge the findings of both the Courts blow. As far as the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is concerned, as the Courts below have found that three cheques issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondents had bounced and the total amount of three cheques was Rs.29,400/-, therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as full and final settlement and the order regarding the sentence of the petitioner be reduced to the one already undergone by him. Learned counsel further Crl.R. No.441 of 2004 -2- submits that the petitioner is around 70 years of age and on this count also a lenient view be taken while sentencing the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has brought a Demand Draft of Rs.20,000/- in favour of the respondents, i.e. Trimurti Financiers, Yamuna Nagar. Mr. Rahul Rathore, counsel for respondent No.2 states that he had a telephone talk with the respondent and he is ready and willing to accept a sum of Rs.20,000/- being offered by the petitioner. Counsel for respondent No.2 further submits that he would have no objection if the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the one already undergone by him. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is an old man of around 70 years of age. He has furnished a Demand Draft of Rs.20,000/- which would, by and large, satisfy the cheques issued by the petitioner in favour of respondent No.2. In view of the aforementioned facts, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, I reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the one already undergone by him. The Demand Draft of Rs.20,000/- has been handed over the Mr. Rahul Rathore, counsel for the respondent No.2 in Court. Revision disposed of. May 18, 2009 (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) Gulati JUDGE