Lachhman Singh vs Indusind Bank Ltd And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 22374 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Lachhman Singh vs Indusind Bank Ltd And Anr on 20 December, 2023

                                                      Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164262




                                                    2023:PHHC:164262
CRR-51-2020 (O&M)                                                  1

106      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                       CHANDIGARH
                               CRR-51-2020 (O&M)
                               Date of Decision: 20.12.2023

LACHHMAN SINGH
                                                             ...Petitioner
                                           V/S

INDUSIND BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER
                                                             ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present: Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate
         for the petitioner.

         Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate for the respondent No. 1.
      Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG Punjab
      for respondent No. 2.
                             ****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner

against the judgment dated 03.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Bathinda affirming the judgment of conviction and order

of sentence dated 03.12.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate

1st Class, Bathinda vide which the petitioner has been held guilty for

commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act and awarded rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01

year and to pay compensation to the complainant bank to the tune of

Rs. 77,800/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.

2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is body

corporate under the banking companies Act 40 of 1980 having its head

office at Bathinda and branch office among other places at Bathinda. The

complainant was officer of the complainant bank and was also well

conversant with the facts of the present case and was also competent and

1 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164262

2023:PHHC:164262

authorized to carry on all legal proceedings of the present case being the

principal officer. It is averred that accused/petitioner took a loan from the

complainant bank to the tune of Rs.2,20,000/- for purchase of product

TATA ACE Magic bearing Registration No.PB-03U-2589 vide contract

agreement No. JH004006H dated 30.06.2009 and agreed to pay a sum of

Rs.82,775/- as interest charges on the said amount and agreed to pay the

total amount of Rs.03,02,775/- to the complainant bank in monthly

installments. The accused did not repay the loan amount regularly rather

his account became irregular and a sum of Rs.2,82,000/- was still due

and outstanding against the accused. The accused/petitioner in discharge

of his partial lawful liability issued cheque No.857241 dated 10.06.2014

of Rs.77,800/- in favour of the complainant bank out of his account

maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Court Complex, Bathinda

with the assurance that the same shall be hounored as and when

presented for encashment. It is further averred that said cheque was

presented for encahsment but the same was returned dishonoured with

remarks 'Funds Insufficient' vide memo dated 11.06.2014 by the banker

of the accused to the banker of complainant. Thereafter, complainant got

issued a legal notice dated 30.06.2014 upon the accused through counsel

intimating the accused about the dishonour of said cheque and calling

upon the accused to make the payment of the said dishonoured cheque

amount to the complainant within the period of 15 days from, the date of

receipt of the notice but complainant failed to make the payment of the

cheque in question.

3. In order to prove its case, the complainant was examined and

he reiterated the contents of the complaint as well as evidence of

2 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164262

2023:PHHC:164262

complainant. Statements of the accused/petitioner under Section 313

Cr.P.C. was recorded in which all the incriminating evidence was put to

him to which he pleaded false implication and claimed innocence.

6. After hearing arguments of both the sides and perusing the

evidence on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner

as stated above.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the

petitioner is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated

03.12.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda

which stood upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda

on merits and restrict his prayer for modification of the order of sentence

dated 03.12.2018 on quantum of sentence to that of the sentence already

undergone by the petitioner, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is

suffering agony of protracted trial from 2014. It is also contended that

petitioner has not been involved in any other criminal case during the

course of trial or post conviction.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the

prayer of the petitioner for modification of the order of sentence to that of

already undergone on the ground that the learned trial Court has passed a

well reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence

available on record. However, he does not dispute the fact that no other

case is pending against the petitioner. The custody certificate dated

19.12.2023 submitted by the learned State counsel is taken on record.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record of the case with their able assistance. The complaint in question was

lodged on the allegation of petitioner/accused not being able to discharge

his liability and dishonouring of cheque. It is submitted by the counsel

3 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164262

2023:PHHC:164262

for the petitioner that the complaint in question was registered in the year

2014 and the petitioner has been suffering the agony of trial from last

about 09 years as the appeals are also continuation of trial, therefore, he

prays that the order of sentence be modified to that of already undergone.

10. A two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of

Rajasthan Vs. Dhool Singh (2004) 12 SCC 546 speaking through

Justice N. Santosh Hegde, has held as under:-

"18. Before concluding, we must refer to a disturbing tendency noticed by us very often in some of the judgments impugned before this Court. As in this case in some appeals, we find the appellate or revisional courts reduce the sentence while maintaining the conviction to sentence already undergone without even noticing what is the period already undergone. The courts should bear in mind that there is a requirement in law that every conviction should be followed by an appropriate sentence within the period stipulated in law. Discretion in this regard is not absolute or whimsical. It is controlled by law and to some extent by judicial discretion, applicable to the facts of the case. Therefore, there is a need for the courts to apply its mind while imposing sentence."

A two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajmer

Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 633 has observed as under:-

"10. We have noticed in several judgments of the High Courts which have come up for consideration before us that while reducing the sentence to the period already undergone, no notice is taken of the actual sentence undergone by the accused. There is nothing on record to indicate the period of sentence already undergone by the accused. We, therefore,

4 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164262

2023:PHHC:164262

consider it appropriate to observe that whenever a court reduces the sentence of an accused to the period already undergone, it should categorically notice and state the period actually undergone by the accused."

11. A two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd.

Giasuddin Vs. State of AP, AIR 1977 SC 1926, speaking through

Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, has observed as under:-

"Crime is a pathological aberration. The criminal can ordinarily be redeemed and the state has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads to antesocial behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by re-culturization. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology in the individual and the goal is salvaging him for the society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today vies sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of a social defence. Hence a therapeutic, rather than an 'in terrorem' outlook should prevail in our criminal courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries."

12. In Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257, a

three Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that

awarding of sentence is not a mere formality in criminal cases. When a

minimum and maximum term is prescribed by the statute with regard to

5 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164262

2023:PHHC:164262

the period of sentence, a discretionary element is vested in the Court.

Background of each case, which includes factors like gravity of the

offence, manner in which the offence is committed, age of the accused,

should be considered while determining the quantum of sentence and this

discretion is not to be used arbitrarily or whimsically. After assessing all

relevant factors, proper sentence should be awarded bearing in mind the

principle of proportionality to ensure the sentence is neither excessively

harsh nor does it come across as lenient. Further, a two Judge Bench in

Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166, has reiterated that

the imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose as it acts as a

deterrent by making the accused realise the damage caused not only to

the victim but also to the society at large. The law in this regard is well

settled that opportunities of reformation must be granted and such

discretion is to be exercised by evaluating all attending circumstances of

each case by noticing the nature of the crime, the manner in which the

crime was committed and the conduct of the accused to strike a balance

between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the

accused.

13. A perusal of the ratio decidendi culled out in the above-

mentioned judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court indicates that in

order to determine the quantum of sentence, Courts should bear in mind

the principle of proportionality as awarding punishment is not merely

retributive but also reformative.

14. As per the custody certificate dated 19.12.2023 produced by

the learned State counsel, the petitioner herein has actually undergone

the period of 03 months and 05 days out of total sentence of 01 year.

6 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164262

2023:PHHC:164262

15. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the trial

court and upheld in appeal by the 1st Appellate Court indicates no

perversity in the findings of the trial court and the same are based on

correct appreciation of evidence available on record.

16. The complaint in the present case was lodged on 28.07.2014

and the petitioner has suffered the agony of trial for about 09 years. After

his conviction, he has grown into law abiding citizen with a desire to live

a normal and peaceful life as no criminal is pending against them. Out of

total sentence of 1 year awarded to the petitioner, he has actually

undergone a period of 03 months and 05 days. Since learned counsel for

the petitioner has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits and

the petitioner-accused is living in harmony and peacefully as law abiding

citizens, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of

justice if total sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 1 year awarded to

the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

Resultantly, the petitioner be released from the custody with immediate

effect, if not involved/wanted in any other case.

17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the judgment

of conviction dated 03.12.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate

1st Class, Bathinda convicting the petitioner, which stood upheld by the

1st Appellate Court in appeal, is upheld, however, order of sentence

dated 03.12.2018 is modified and the total sentence of rigorous

imprisonment for 1 year imposed upon petitioner is reduced to the period

of sentence already undergone by him. However, the compensation to be

paid to the complainant bank to the tune of Rs. 77,800/- along with

interest @ 9% per annum is kept intact.

7 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164262

2023:PHHC:164262

18. Consequently, the instant revision petition is disposed of in

above terms.

19. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

20. The case property, if any, may be dealt with as per rules after

expiry of period of limitation for filing the appeal(s). Record of the case

be sent back to the Court below.

                                                 (HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
20.12.2023                                               JUDGE
Ajay Goswami
                     Whether speaking/reasoned         Yes/No
                     Whether reportable                Yes/No




                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164262

                                      8 of 8