IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 823 of 2003 Date of decision : April 21, 2009 S.C. Verma Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. N.K. Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Parduman Yadav, DAG Haryana Mr. Tapan Kumar Yadav, Advocate for respondent No. 2 A.N. JINDAL, J. (ORAL) Challenge in this petition is to the judgment dated 7.4.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 5.2.2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The brief resume of facts is that the complainant U.C. Madan submitted a complaint alleging therein that accused S.C. Verma is a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 4,000/- since May, 1998 in the premises bearing No. 996, Sector 4, Urban Estate, Gurgaon, which is owned by the complainant. The accused issued two cheques bearing No. 105457 dated 14.2.1999 of Rs. 4,000/- and another cheque bearing No. 105458 dated 8.3.1999 of Rs. 4,000/- respectively on account of the rent in favour of the complainant for the months of February and March, 1999 drawn on State Crl. Revision No. 823 of 2003 2 Bank of India, University of Delhi (South Complex), New Delhi of his account No. 5955. The said both cheques were presented for encashment by the complainant to his banker. However, both the cheques were received by the complainant with the remarks “Insufficient Funds” vide memo dated 15.3.1999. The repeated requests made by the complainant for making payment fell to deaf ears. The notice sent to the petitioner on 1.4.1999 requesting him to pay the amount within 15 days, remained unresponded. Thereafter, the complaint was filed within time i.e. on 29.4.1999. Notice issued to the petitioner was contested by him. In evidence, the complainant examined George T. Matheikal, Sr. Manager, Fedral Bank Ltd., Gurgaon (PW 1), Uttam Chand (PW 2) and Krishan Kumar (PW 3). In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused- petitioner pleaded his false implication. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. The appeal preferred by him also failed. Arguments heard. Records perused. At the very outset, without assailing the judgment of conviction it has been urged that the petitioner is the first offender and has already undergone three months of the substantive sentence. The counsel further urged that he is ready to pay the amount of rent alongwith interest to the complainant, therefore, he be extended some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Having examined the impugned judgment, the same appears to be shorn of any illegality much less irregularity resulting into miscarriage of justice. The evidence appears to have been appreciating in the right perspective. Resultantly findings of fact returned by both the courts below stand affirmed. Crl. Revision No. 823 of 2003 3 As regards quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the complaint was lodged in the year 1999 and the petitioner has already suffered a lot on account of the protracted proceedings. He has already undergone three months out of the substantive sentence. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner is ready to pay the arrears of rent and Rs. 8000/- as interest to the complainant. Under the peculiar circumstances of this case, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is extended benefit of probation. Consequently, the petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to the extent that he be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his executing a bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon for a period of one year within which period he shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, he will be ready to serve sentence as and when called for. However, it would not be treated as disability over his service career. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon for compliance. (A.N.JINDAL) 21.04.2009 JUDGE reena