IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2466 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 14, 2011 Vivek Walia ...Petitioner Versus M/s A.P.Steel Traders, Mandi Gobindgarh & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.J.S.Mehndiratta, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The complainant has instituted a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that the petitioner, being proprietor of M/s Shree Salasar Steels, purchased goods worth `17,33,900/- through three different deals in the year 2006. For discharging this liability, the petitioner allegedly issued cheque No.12321194 dated 9.7.2006 for a sum of ` 7,00,000/-. This cheque when presented was dishonoured. The complainant then served a legal notice and thereafter filed the present complaint against the petitioner leading to his conviction and the award of sentence for one year coupled with compensation of `3,00,000/- under Section 357 Cr.P.C. The petitioner remained unsuccessful in his appeal and has now filed this revision petition. Counsel for the petitioner primarily has contended that the defence evidence has not been properly considered by the trial CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2466 2011 (O&M) :2: Court. As per the counsel, the Appellate Court also did not consider the complete defence as projected. The submission is that only weighment slip was considered, whereas the documents relating to VAT, as led in defence by the petitioner, have not been considered. As per the settled proposition of judicial proceedings, the prosecution case is to stand on its own legs. Both the Courts have found that the complainant was able to establish his case that the cheque was issued. The defence, as projected by the petitioner, was that the cheque in question was forged one. This defence was found being bereft of merit. I do not see any reason to interfere in the well reasoned orders passed by both the Courts below. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner contends that compensation of `3,00,000/- as ordered would not be commensurate with the offence. I am not inclined to accept this line of submission as well. The punishment provided for proved offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act authorises the court to award double the penalty of the cheque. The Court, in a way, has tried to balance the equities in this case. No case for interference is made out. Dismissed. October 14, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE