IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 805 of 2004 Date of decision: 20.10.2011 Radhey Sham .....Petitioner VERSUS Bharpur Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Jattana, Addl.AG, Punjab for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This revision is directed against the conviction of the petitioner recorded under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner had been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year coupled with fine of ` 3000/-. The petitioner was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month more in case of default of payment of fine. The complainant had set up the case that the petitioner issued him a post dated cheque of ` 70,000/- at the time of borrowing money. This cheque was dishonoured when presented for encashment. The petitioner, on the other hand, had pleaded that this cheque was advanced as security and there was no existing liability. As per the petitioner, complainant had given his old tractor to the petitioner for sale and in turn the petitioner had given cheque as security. Criminal Revision No. 805 of 2004 -2- The Courts did not believe the defence case and found that the complainant had been able to establish his case beyond doubt. The Courts have also noticed and recorded the conduct of the petitioner while pleading for time to settle the issue while his appeal or trial was pending. The petitioner, however, could not succeed. The appellate Court rightly observed that no one would give cheque as security in lieu of tractor left with the complainant for selling the same. The conviction and the sentence, accordingly, was upheld. No one has appeared when this revision is taken up for hearing. There is no reason or cause made out to re-appreciate or re-consider the evidence. The view taken by the trial Court as well as by the appellate court is just and reasonable and would not call for any interference. However, the incident is very old. The cheque in question has issued in the year 1999. The petitioner was convicted in the year 2004. The appeal was also decided in March 2004 and the present revision petition is pending since then. Sentence imposed on the petitioner was suspended. In view of the above consideration, the sentence imposed on the petitioner is reduced to period already undergone. The present revision petition is, accordingly, disposed of. October 20, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE