Criminal Revision No. 364 of 2004 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 364 of 2004 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.7.2009 Shri Krishan Garg .. Petitioner v. Shri B. K. Singhal and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. The complainant is before this Court challenging the order dated 27.10.2003, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar imposing punishment of fine of Rs. 5,000/- on the respondents and in default of payment thereof, respondent No. 1 was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner filed a complaint against the respondents on 8.6.1996 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, `the Act') with the allegations that cheque of Rs. 53,367.20 issued by respondent No. 1 on behalf of respondent No. 2 in favour of the petitioner was dishonoured. Vide judgment dated 22.7.1999, respondent No. 1 was convicted and considering the bonafides and the stand of the respondents, he was ordered to be released on probation on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount for six months. Respondent No. 1 was also burdened with Rs. 5,000/- as costs of the proceedings. Aggrieved against the judgment of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner preferred appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar. The grouse of the petitioner was that once the conviction of respondent No. 1 was recorded, he could not be released on probation. Vide judgment dated 5.10.2002, the learned Additional Sessions Judge remitted the matter back to the learned trial court for passing appropriate sentence. The learned Magistrate passed the impugned order imposing a fine of Rs. 5,000/- on the respondents. The petitioner, being aggrieved against the order so passed, is before this Court. Criminal Revision No. 364 of 2004 [2] Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the conviction of respondent No. 1 had been recorded, the court should have awarded punishment to him commensurate to the guilt established. The fine should have been to the extent of 200% of the amount of cheque. The conduct of the respondents was not fair, as has been noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and without going into the issue as to whether a direct petition to this Court is maintainable against the order of sentence passed by the learned Magistrate in proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, considering the fact that the complaint was filed way back in the year 1991 and 13 years have gone by, the learned court below had exercised its judicial discretion in the matter of awarding the sentence. Merely because this court may have a different opinion on the quantum of sentence awarded, considering the time, which has lapsed ever since the proceedings started, in my opinion, it would not be a fit case where interference by this Court is called for at this stage. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 27.7.2009 mk