Criminal Revision No.2424 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2424 of 2008 Date of Decision: May 11, 2009 Dharampal Singh Kaushik ...........Petitioner Versus M/s Hazari Lal Om Parkash ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Sunil Saharan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Arvind Rajotia,Advocate for the respondent. ** Sabina, J. Petitioner-Dharampal Singh Kaushik was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (`the Act' for short) by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar dated 10.4.2006. Vide order dated 12.4.2006, petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years along with fine of Rs.5000/- .Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar on 14.8.2008. Hence, the present revision petition. The brief facts as noticed by the appellate Court, in para 2 of Criminal Revision No.2424 of 2008 2 its judgment, is as under:- “In brief the facts of the case are as under:- “That the complainant firm is engaged in the business of Cotton Merchant-Cum-Commission Agents at Abohar, District Ferozepur (Punjab) and the accused has been purchasing cotton from them from time to time on credit and a sum of Rs.57,34,342.35 p was due towards him as on 3.4.1996, as per statement of accounts prepared by the complainant during the ordinary course of business. In order to discharge his liability the accused had issued two cheques, the details of which is given as under:- Sr.No Cheque No. Date Amount Name of the Bank 1 552001 29.12.1995 10 lacs Bank of India, Hisar 2 552015 07/04/96 8 lacs -do- It has been further alleged that at the time of issuance of these cheques, the accused had assured that they will maintain sufficient balance in their account with Bank of India, Hisar. Thereafter, the complainant presented both the cheques in his bank account on 3.6.1996 but the same were dishonoured with the remarks `Insufficient Funds'. On receipt of the information with regard to the dishonour of the cheques, the complainant got served a legal notice upon the accused through his counsel by registered post within the stipulated period but the same was received back unserved on 22.6.96. Thereafter, accused paid an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- to the complainant vide demand draft No. RHU-177715 dated 28.6.1996 to be drawn at Abohar but since the accused did not pay the remaining amount despite Criminal Revision No.2424 of 2008 3 request the present complaint was filed”. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the cheques in question were dishonoured in June, 1996 and at that time, the offence under Section 138 of the Act was punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year. With effect from 6.2.2003, amendment was made in Section 138 of the Act and punishment for offence was enhanced to imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. Learned counsel has submitted that since the cause of action in the present case has arisen before the amendment, sentence qua imprisonment could have been passed only up to one year and not for two years. Learned counsel has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act as ordered by Courts below but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner may be reduced. There is force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Earlier offence, under Section 138 of the Act was provided with imprisonment for a term which may extend up to one year. However, with effect from 6.2.2003, an amendment was made and the punishment qua imprisonment was enhanced from one year to two years. Since the cheques in question were presented for encashment and they were dishonoured in June, 1996, the Courts below could have passed sentence qua imprisonment upto one year. Accordingly, keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a fit case where the sentence qua imprisonment is liable to be reduced . Hence, conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Criminal Revision No.2424 of 2008 4 Act is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment is reduced from simple imprisonment for two years to simple imprisonment for one year. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Sabina) Judge May 11, 2009 arya