IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2323 of 2009 Date of decision : November 03, 2009 Satish Kumar Narang ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Pradeep Virk, DAG Haryana for respondent no. 1 Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, Advocate for respondent no. 2 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Petitioner Satish Kumar Narang was convicted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year vide judgment of conviction dated 31.3.2009 and order of sentence dated 2.4.2009 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pehowa. Appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra vide judgment dated 1.9.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. The allegation against the petitioner was that he issued cheque dated 1.8.2002 for Rs 5,25,000/- to complainant-respondent no. 2 Paramjit Criminal Revision No. 2323 of 2009 -2- Singh. The said cheque was dishonoured. The petitioner failed to pay the cheque amount inspite of demand notice. Notice of motion in the instant revision petition was issued re: quantum of sentence only. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that pursuant to order dated 29.9.2009 whereby interim bail was granted to the petitioner, the petitioner deposited Rs 2,75,000/- with the trial court and the said amount has been ordered to be released to complainant-respondent no. 2 vide order dated 24.10.2009 so that the same may be taken into consideration on the quantum of sentence. It was also contended that the petitioner had in fact taken Rs 2 lacs only and two blank signed cheques including cheque in question were given to the complainant as security. However, this contention has been discarded by both the courts below on the basis of appreciation of evidence led by the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for reduction in sentence. On the other hand learned counsel for complainant-respondent no. 2 contended that the cheque for Rs 5,25,000/- dated 1.8.2002 i.e. more than seven years old and if interest is added at moderate rate of 12% per annum, the amount would be more than double amount. Therefore, no reduction in sentence is warranted. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has already deposited Rs 2,75,000/- which has already been ordered to be paid to the Criminal Revision No. 2323 of 2009 -3- complainant-respondent no. 2 and keeping in view all other circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment for one year is reduced to imprisonment for eight months. It is ordered accordingly. With reduction in sentence as aforesaid, the revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( L.N. Mittal ) November 03, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'