IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1508 of 2004 Date of decision: 4th May, 2009 Shiv Kumar … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General Punjab for the State. Mr. R.C. Setia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal Ranjan, Advocate for the complainant respondent No.2. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Mr. R.C. Setia, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vishal Ranjan, appearing for the complainant respondent No.2, has stated that in the present case, compromise has been effected between the parties and it was agreed that complainant shall facilitate grant of probation to the petitioner. Learned counsel has further stated that he will also pray to the Court that since the amount of cheque has been received, sentence awarded upon the petitioner be reduced to already undergone. In the present case, complaint was instituted by respondent No.2 against Shiv Kumar, Proprietor M/s Veenus Cloth House, Maharishi Dayanand Chowk, Garha, Jalandhar City. It was stated that he had issued a cheque amounting to Rs.98,000/- dated 4th November, 1998. The cheque was not honoured due to insufficiency of funds. Therefore, Criminal Revision No. 1508 of 2004 mandatory notice was served. On the failure, on the part of petitioner to pay the amount, complaint was instituted. Petitioner was tried by the Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class) and was sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and a fine of Rs.5,000/- was also imposed, in default of payment of fine the petitioner had to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had filed an appeal. The same was dismissed and the sentence awarded upon the petitioner was maintained. Dismissal of appeal led petitioner to file present revision petition. Sentence was suspended by this Court on 18th September, 2004. Petitioner had undergone about two months and five days of his actual sentence of one year. The alleged cheque was issued on 4th November, 1998. Petitioner has already suffered a protracted trial of more than ten years. Since Mr. R.C. Setia, Senior Advocate on instructions from Mr. Vishal Ranjan, has stated that parties have arrived at compromise and amount of cheque has been paid, taking into consideration all the facts stated above, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars. Accordingly, sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced to already undergone, however, sentence of fine is maintained. With these modifications in the sentence, present revision petition stands disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE May 4, 2009 rps 2