Criminal Revision No. 1827 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1827 of 2009 Date of Decision: 09.02.2010 Gamdoor Singh son of Baldev Singh r/o Nandgarh, Tehsil and District Muktsar. ... Revision-petitioner Versus 1. The State of Punjab. 2. Shaminder Pal Singh son of Amarjit Singh, r/o Sangudhaun, Tehsil and District Muktsar. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the revision-petitioner. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No. 1 – State. None for respondent No. 2. SHAM SUNDER, J. This revision-petition, is directed against the judgment dated 09.07.09, rendered by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Muktsar, vide which, it dismissed the appeal, against the judgement of conviction and the order of sentence dated 16.08.08, rendered by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Muktsar, at the same time, holding that the compensation, could not be awarded, especially when the fine, forming part of the sentence, had been imposed. Criminal Revision No. 1827 of 2009 2 2. In order to discharge his legally enforceable liability, the accused/revision-petitioner, issued a cheque, dated 12.02.04, amounting to Rs. 25 lacs, in favour of the complainant/respondent. When the cheque, was presented, it was dishonoured. A statutory notice, was served upon the accused/revision-petitioner, but, the payment of the dishonoured cheque, was not made. Ultimately, a criminal complaint, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be called as the 'Act' only), was filed. 3. After the appearance of the accused/revision-petitioner, in the trial Court, notice, containing the sum and substance of the allegations, was served upon him, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial. 4. The complainant, in support of his case, appeared himself, as CW2, and also examined Roshan Lal, Special Assistant, State Bank of Punjab, Muktsar, as CW1. Thereafter, the complainant, closed his evidence. 5. 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 of the complainant. He pleaded false implication. It was stated by him that the complainant, his father Ajmer Singh and his brother Gurmit Singh, had filed three complaints, against him, on the basis of forged cheques, for a total amount of Rs. 60 lacs. It was further stated by him that he had issued blank cheques, to the complainant/respondent, his father and Criminal Revision No. 1827 of 2009 3 brother, because they were partners with him. It was further stated by him that the partnership, was dissolved, and thereafter, the blank cheques, were misused and the complaints were filed. He also examined Sandip Kumar, DW1. 6. 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 to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of two years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default of payment thereof, he was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of two months. He was further directed to pay compensation equivalent to the cheque amount, under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to the complainant. 7. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal, was preferred, by the accused/revision-petitioner, which was dismissed, with the modification, that the direction, with regard to the payment of compensation, was set aside. 8. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner. 9. Notice of motion, was only issued, with regard to the quantum of sentence. 10. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 11. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, has submitted that Criminal Revision No. 1827 of 2009 4 the revision-petitioner, has been facing the protracted criminal proceedings, since 19.07.04, when the complaint, against him, was filed, by the complainant/respondent. He has further submitted that, the revision-petitioner, is the first cousin of the complainant. He has further submitted that the blank cheque, was issued, by the accused/revision-petitioner, when there was partnership, between him and the complainant/respondent, and, after dissolution, the same, was retained by him and misused, resulting into the filing of the complaint. He has further submitted that the revision-petitioner, has already suffered a lot of mental agony and physical pain and the sentence, awarded, to him, be reduced suitably. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in this regard, appears to be correct. Since the revision-petitioner, has been facing the protracted criminal proceedings, for the last about 06 years, he must have learnt a lesson. The ends of justice, would be met, in case, suitable reduction, in the substantive sentence, awarded to him, is made. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, to this extent, being correct, is accepted. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, is partly accepted. The judgement of conviction, is affirmed. The order of substantive sentence, is modified, in the manner, that the revision- petitioner, shall undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of 1 ½ years, instead of 02 years, awarded by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court. The sentence of fine, and the sentence awarded in Criminal Revision No. 1827 of 2009 5 default of payment thereof, shall, however, remain unaltered. 13. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, is directed to comply with the judgement, in accordance with law, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and send the compliance report, within a period of 02 months, from the date of receipt of a copy thereof. 09.02.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE