IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2120 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: September 28, 2011 Nand Lal Thakur .. Petitioner Vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. S.K. Guleria, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, APP for U.T. Chandigarh. Mr. Sushant Batish, Advocate for respondent No.2. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 11.8.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused- petitioner against the judgment dated 4.9.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of `1000/- under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (herein referred as, 'the Act'). Against the cheque of `1.00 lac, which was dishonoured, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he had deposited a sum of `70,000/- before the First Appellate Court, which was received by the respondent. This fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent also. He has further stated a sum of `30,000/- were deposited by him again before the First Appellate Court and the said amount is still pending in the shape of demand draft. He has also tendered a draft No.606646 dated 27.9.2011 for a sum of `70,000/- drawn on Vijaya Bank, payable to the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner without assailing the findings of conviction has prayed that since the entire cheque amount as well as interest agreed before the Lok Adalat has been paid to the respondent and the petitioner has already undergone about one month and eleven days of the substantive sentence, he be extended some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Crl. Revision No. 2120 of 2011 -2- *** As regards the findings of conviction recorded by both the courts below, it may observed that the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected in the impugned judgment. As such, findings of fact returned by both the courts below stand affirmed. As regards the quantum of sentence it may be observed that since the petitioner has made payment of the entire amount as settled before the Lok Adalat and has already undergone about one month and eleven days of the substantive sentence, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to him on the quantum of sentence. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to that of already undergone by him without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Before parting with the judgment it may be observed that the respondent would be at liberty to withdraw the amount of `30,000/- lying deposited in the Appellate Court by moving appropriate application in this regard. September 28, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge