IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision 852 of 2007 Date of decision: 6.1.2009 Mohinder Singh …Petitioner Versus M/s Fashion Secrets and ors …Respondents Present: Mr Vishal Deep Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr R N Lohan, Advocate for respondents-1 and 2. S.S. SARON, J. The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (Act – for short) alleging that the respondents had taken on rent a portion of the basement as well as ground floor of SCO 12, Sector 11, Panchkula. The petitioner terminated the lease in respect of the demised premises. He filed two suits seeking ejectment and recovery of rent of the demised premises. Ultimately, the civil suits were compromised and the respondents issued a cheque (Ex C1) for a sum of Rs 30,000/- which was dishonoured. Accordingly the complaint under Section 138 of the Act was filed by the petitioner against the respondents. The learned CJM, Panchkula vide order dated 8.12.2005 held the respondents guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced respondent No.2 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year; besides the respondents were to pay a fine of Rs 60,000/-. In the event of default of payment of fine, the respondents were to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. On 1 Criminal Revision 852 of 2007 payment of the fine, it was ordered that 50% of the amount of fine shall be paid to the complainant-petitioner as compensation. The respondents aggrieved against the order dated 8.12.2005 passed by the learned CJM Panchkula preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Panchkula. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula vide order dated 12.3.2007 increased the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner to the extent of Rs 50,000/- instead of Rs 30,000/- ordered by the learned CJM Panchkula. An amount of Rs 10,000/- was ordered to be paid as fine. It was noticed that the amount of Rs 60,000/- had already been deposited. The order imposing imprisonment was set aside. The petitioner-complainant aggrieved against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge has filed the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has gravely erred in setting aside the order directing the respondent No.2 to undergo imprisonment of one year and the order of the learned CJM Panchkula in this regard is liable to be restored. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajneesh Aggarwal v. Amit J. Bhalla (2001)1 SCC 631 to contend that mere payment of the amount would not warrant that the accused is absolved of the criminal liability. Therefore, it is submitted that the order imposing sentence of imprisonment passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula be restored. In response, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court in exercise of its powers of revision is limited and once the learned Court below has passed an order which in the facts and circumstances of the case is not shown to be in any manner perverse or improper, no interference is called for in this revision petition. 2 Criminal Revision 852 of 2007 After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the facts and circumstances of the case has upheld the order of the trial Court insofar as the conviction of the respondents is concerned. It was noticed that it had been established that the accused-respondents had always been ready to make the payment of the cheque amount of Rs.30,000/- but it was the complainant-petitioner who refused to accept the payment. At the time of recording evidence, the accused-respondents offered a bank draft of Rs.30,000/- in favour of the complainant-petitioner. However, the complainant-petitioner did not accept the amount. Even during the proceedings in the complaint, it was observed that the accused-respondents had always remained ready to make the entire payment, but it was the petitioner-complainant who had remained adamant and did not accept the payment. Even during the pendency of the appeal, an application was made by the accused-respondents for making entire payment along with the interest but the complainant-petitioner still refused to accept the offer. The admitted position is that the accused-respondents was the tenant in respect of the premises owned by the complainant-petitioner. The petitioner intended to evict the accused-respondents from the tenanted premises by putting pressure and not accepting the amount offered by the accused- respondents at various occasions. Therefore, it was observed that the conduct of the accused-respondents was to be appreciated for the purposes of sentence. It may also be noticed that the petitioner in fact had accepted payment of Rs 8,10,000/- on behalf of the respondent firm during execution proceedings in the Court of learned Additional District Judge-I Panchkula vide order dated 3.6.2006. Therefore, even after receiving the payment pertaining to the arrears of rent, the complainant-petitioner did not accept 3 Criminal Revision 852 of 2007 the amount that was offered to be paid even during the pendency of the appeal by moving an application. Therefore, it was noticed that the real intention of the complainant was not to accept the cheque amount but he had some other motive. In the said facts and circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the considered view that payment of compensation if increased to Rs 50,000/- instead of Rs 30,000/- allowed by the trial Court and payment of Rs 10,000/- as fine would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded by the learned CJM was set aside and the respondent-accused was ordered to pay Rs 50,000/- as compensation to the petitioner. The said amount has already been deposited. In the case of Rajneesh Aggarwal (supra) referred to above it was held that payment of the entire amount that was involved would have effect in the matter of awarding the sentence but does not absolve an accused of the criminal liability. There is no dispute to the said proposition. In the facts and circumstances of the present case an amount of Rs.8,10,000/- has been received by the petitioner as arrears of rent from the respondent-firm. The amount due towards the cheque has been ordered to be paid as compensation. Besides, an additional amount of Rs.20,000/- has been awarded as compensation. The entire amount that is payable as compensation has already been deposited by the respondent along with the amount of fine. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, no useful purpose would be served by now ordering the imprisonment of respondent No.2 to jail by restoring the order of the learned CJM Panchkula and setting aside the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula. This is more so for the reason that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Panchkula is not shown to be in any 4 Criminal Revision 852 of 2007 manner illegal or perverse which would warrant interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. By ordering the payment of compensation and fine instead of imprisonment, no failure of justice has been occasioned. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 6.1.2009. ( S.S.SARON ) ASR JUDGE 5