IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2261 of 2007 Date of Decision: February 16, 2009 Rajesh Kumar @ Joshi ...........Petitioner Versus Bahadur Singh and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.R.K.Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab ** Sabina, J. Petitioner-Rajesh Kumar @ Joshi was convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi vide judgment dated 19.1.2007. Vide order of even date, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.5000/- . Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala vide judgment dated 10.8.2007. Hence, the present revision petition The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, are as under:- "In order to discharge his financial liability, appellant issued cheque Ex.C2 dated 10.8.2003 of ICICI Bank Ltd., Jalandhar Branch, in favour of respondent No.1, which when presented for encashment was returned unencashed to the latter vide memo dated 18.8.2003 with the remarks of insufficiency of funds, in the account of the former, thereupon, notice dated 2.9.2003 was served upon the appellant by the respondent No.1, herein, asking Crl. Revision No. 2261 of 2007 -2- him to make payment of the amount mentioned in the cheque, but the appellant failed to make the payment and that necessitated the filing of complaint by respondent no.1 before the Ld. Trial Court, seeking to summon and punish appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.” Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under the Act. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has already undergone about seven months of actual sentence and the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner may be reduced to already undergone by him. As per compromise dated 19.6.2003, the petitioner had paid cheque in question to the complainant. Respondent No.1 as per the Office report has refused to accept service. As per custody certificate placed on record, petitioner has undergone six months and 3 days of actual sentence as on 23.1.2009. Keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a fit case where the sentence of imprisonment is liable to be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. Accordingly, conviction of the petitioner under the Act is maintained. However, the sentence of the imprisonment is reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. With this modification, revision petition stands disposed of. ( Sabina ) Judge February 16, 2009 arya