The Delhi High Court expounded that there is no bar in extending the benefit of probation in a case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “NIA”).
The Court observed the conduct of the Accused and the fact that there were no criminal antecedents. Based on this, the Court altered the sentence.
Brief Facts:
A complaint was filed under Section 138 of NIA against Respondent No. 2. The Learned Trial Court held Respondent No. 2 guilty and awarded punishment to Respondent No. 2.
Against the sentence of the Learned Trial Court, Respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal. The Learned Appellate Court upheld the conviction of Respondent No. 2 but extended him the benefit of probation.
The present petition has been preferred against the order extending the benefit of probation to Respondent No. 2
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was argued that the benefit of probation is illegal as probation cannot be granted merely on the grounds of Respondent No. 2 not being a previous convict. It was contended that the Court failed to consider an important fact that Respondent No. 2 was a tenant of the Petitioner and occupied the property by illegal means for almost 36 months. The Petitioner had to file a suit for possession and permanent injunction and Respondent No. 2 has still not paid rent which caused great financial hardships to Petitioner.
Contentions of the Respondent No. 2:
It was argued that the entire compensation amount has been paid by Respondent No. 2, so the present suit is filed with mala fide intentions.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that Petitioner is aggrieved only because leniency was shown towards Respondent No. 2.
The Bench opined that there is no bar on the benefit of probation being extended in a case filed under Section 138 of NIA. The allegations concerning rent and possession of the property are civil in nature and hence, have no bearing on the present case.
The decision of the Court:
The Delhi High Court held that the conduct of Respondent No. 2 was taken into consideration and given that he has no criminal antecedents, the Appellate Court was right in passing the order to alter the sentence. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Parminder Khetarpal v. State of NCT Delhi & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma
Case No.: CRL.REV. P. 482/2018
Advocate for Petitioner: Petitioner in person
Advocate for Respondents: APP. Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
