Delhi High Court
Sunil Kumar Gupta vs The State & Anr on 10 May, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of hearing and Order: 10th May 2016
+ CRL.REV.P. 278/2016, Crl. M. (Bail) No.749/2016
SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. A.K. Pandey, Advocate
versus
THE STATE & ANR
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State
Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate for
respondent No. 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
ORDER
%
P.S. TEJI, J. (ORAL)
1. By this petition filed under Section 397/401 of Cr. P.C., the
petitioner seeks to challenge the order of conviction dated 15.12.2015
and order on sentence dated 07.01.2016 passed by learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari, Delhi, whereby the petitioner
was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four
months. The petitioner also seeks to challenge the orders dated
17.03.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Central, Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi, passed in Criminal Appeal No.09/2016, whereby
the learned Additional Session Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by
the petitioner and upheld the impugned orders passed by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, Central, Tis Hazari, Delhi.
2. The facts of the case as mentioned in the impugned judgment
are that on 14.08.2011 the petitioner requested the complainant to
provide him with a friendly loan of Rs.2.65 lacs and the complainant
advanced the said loan amount which the petitioner promised to pay
back within a period of two months. At the time of advancing loan, the
petitioner issued cheque No.403313 dated 14.08.2011 drawn on
Oriental Bank of Commerce, Chawri Bazar, Delhi. The petitioner
could not repay the said amount within the stipulated time. After a
year, petitioner issued another cheque No.409580 dated 14.12.2012
for Rs.3,49,800/- drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Chawri
Bazar, Delhi with assurance that the same will be honoured on its
presentation. However the cheque got dishonoured with the remarks
"funds insufficient" vide cheque memo dated 31.12.2012. Legal
notice dated 21.10.2013 was sent to the petitioner but he failed to pay
the amount.
3. Trial commenced, evidences were lead on behalf of both the
sides and after conclusion of the trial, the petitioner was convicted for
the offence committed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 and accordingly sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of four months. He was also directed to pay compensation
of Rs.5 lac.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence,
the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, which was also dismissed vide impugned order and the order of
conviction and sentence was upheld. Now the petitioner has preferred
the present revision petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his arguments on
sentence passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate and submits that
the petitioner has already undergone the sentence for a period of about
two months and he has already deposited the compensation amount.
Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner has
family to support and he is not a previous convict in any other case,
therefore, some leniency in order on sentence be granted to the
petitioner.
6. Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the State contended that the impugned orders passed by learned
Metropolitan Magistrate as well as order passed in appeal by learned
Additional Session Judge are well reasoned orders and they do not call
for any interference therefore the present revision petition is liable to
be dismissed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone
through the impugned judgments and orders and the nominal roll of
the petitioner.
8. After considering the submissions advanced by both the sides
and upon perusal of the impugned order, evidence on record and the
decisions cited, I find that there is no illegality or infirmity in the
impugned conviction of petitioner-accused. However, on the quantum
of sentence, this Court observes that the petitioner has family to
support, he is not a previous convict in any other case and in the
considered opinion of this Court , the petitioner has already faced
agony of these proceedings for last about 3 years. Nominal roll of the
petitioner is also perused by this Court, according to which the
petitioner has already remained behind the bars in this case for about 2
months.
9. This Court further observes that the petitioner is sentenced for
the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881, which does not prescribe any minimum sentence.
Therefore, after considering the facts that the petitioner is not a
previous convict, has family to support and has already undergone the
agony these proceedings for the last about 3 years, this Court is of the
opinion that ends of justice would be met if petitioner's substantive
sentence is reduced from 4 months to 2 and a half months.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present revision petition
is partly allowed on the quantum of sentence to the extent indicated
above.
11. Trial Court be apprised of this order forthwith by sending copy
of this order.
12. Copy of this order be also sent to the Jail Superintendent for
information.
13. This revision petition as well as application are disposed of in
aforesaid terms.
P.S.TEJI, J
MAY 10, 2016
pkb
