IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1965 of 2005 Date of Decision: February 04, 2009 Shinder Singh ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.D.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai,Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. ** Sabina, J. Petitioner-Shinder Singh was convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi vide judgment dated 30.8.2004. Vide order of even date, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.5000/- . Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala vide judgment dated 8.9.2005. Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of the judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “ The facts, in brief, are that the complainant firm is a registered firm. Labh Kumar Dhir is a registered partner of the same. Crl. Revision No. 1965 of 2005 -2- Shinder Singh accused took a loan from the complainant firm. In part of the said loan, he issued a cheque No. 091312 in the sum of Rs.1,80,000/- dated 3.11.2003 of Capital Local area Bank Limited, Jalandhar Road, Kapurthala Branch and handed over the same at Sultanpur Lodhi at the office of the complainant firm. The accused promised that the payment will be made on the presentation of the cheque, but when the said cheque was presented before the concerned bank, the same was returned with the remarks of “insufficient funds” vide memo dated 14.11.2003. The accused was duly informed that the cheque issued by him had been dishonoured. It was further stated that despite having knowledge of the dishonour of the cheque and receipt of the notice, the accused did not make arrangements to make payment of the cheque. Ultimately, a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Act, was filed.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had taken a loan on hire purchase basis. He could not repay the entire loan. The blank cheque which had been given as a security was presented for encashment and the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that the cheque issued by the petitioner had bounced and the Courts below had rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner under the Act. Cheque in question was issued by the petitioner on 3.11.2003 for a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- in the name of M/s. Hire Purchase. When the cheque was presented for encashment, the same bounced “ due to funds Crl. Revision No. 1965 of 2005 -3- insufficient”. Memo in this regard issued by the Bank is Exhibit C-2 dated 14.11.2003. Therefore a notice was issued to the petitioner regarding the payment. But he failed to repay the amount. Left with no alternative, complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner. In support of his case Labh Kumar Dhir, (PW1) partner of the firm appeared in the witness box and deposed as per the contents of the complaint. Dinesh Anand (PW2) has proved the presentation of cheque to the Bank and its bouncing due to insufficient funds. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly convicted the petitioner for offence under the Act. Petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.5000/- by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi and the said order of sentence dated 30.8.2004 was maintained by the Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 8.9.2005. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment appears to be on higher side and the same is liable to be reduced. The petitioner had taken a loan for purchase of tractor to cultivate his land but could not repay the same. Fine is said to have been deposited. Accordingly, sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. With this modification, revision petition stands disposed of. ( Sabina ) Judge February 04, 2009 arya