Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lakhwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165738
2023:PHHC:165738
CRR-2940-2023 1
109 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-2940-2023
Date of Decision: December 21, 2023
Lakhwinder Singh ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Ms. Gurpal Singh Sandhu, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. I.P.S. Sabhawal, DAG, Punjab
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated
09.02.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Fazilka vide which judgment of
conviction and order of quantum of sentence dated 09.11.2022 passed by
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar, Fazilka in Criminal Complaint CIS no.
NACT/832/2017 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(hereinafter 'NI Act') was upheld. The petitioner was sentenced as under:-
Offence Sentence
Section 138 of the Simple imprisonment of 1 year
NI Act
The petitioner was also ordered to pay compensation to the tune of
the cheque amount i.e. Rs. 48,500/- as envisaged in Section 357(3) of the
Cr.P.C, in default of payment of which, the petitioner was ordered to undergo
further simple imprisonment of three months.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165738
2023:PHHC:165738
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. Briefly, the facts are that to discharge his liability, the petitioner
issued a cheque no. 170474 dated 07.05.2019 for Rs. 48,500/- which was
dishonoured on presentation for encashment vide memo dated 09.05.2019 with
the remarks- 'funds insufficient .' Thereafter a legal notice dated 17.05.2019
was served upon the petitioner. However, the petitioner failed to make the
requisite payment and the present complaint was filed.
3. After appreciating the evidence on record, the petitioner was
convicted by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 09.11.2022.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the lower
Appellate Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 09.02.2023.
CONTENTIONS
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing
the impugned judgment of conviction dated 09.11.2022 on merits and restricts
his prayer to modification of the order of quantum of sentence to that of the
sentence already undergone by the petitioner as has already undergone a period
of 2 months 4 days of custody. Furthermore, no other case is pending against
him.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner
is 35 years of age. He has reformed and intend to live his life as a law-abiding
citizen.
6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the
petitioner as the learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based
on correct appreciation of evidence available on record, which has been upheld
by the learned lower Appellate Court, as such, he does not deserve any
leniency.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165738
2023:PHHC:165738
ANALYSIS AND OBSERVATIONS
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-
book with their able assistance.
8. In Deo Narain Mandal v. State 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 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. 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.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165738
2023:PHHC:165738
9. As per the custody certificate produced by the learned State
counsel, details of custody period of the petitioner are tabulated as under:-
Sr Particulars Period Duration
No.
1. Custody under trial - -
2. Custody after conviction 18/10/2023 to 2 months 4 days
21/12/2023
3. Interim bail - -
4. Actual custody period after 18/10/2023 to 2 months 4 days
conviction 21/12/2023
5. Actual undergone period 18/10/2023 to 2 months 4 days
21/12/2023
6. Earned remission - -
7. Total sentence including 18/10/2023 to 2 months 4 days
remission 21/12/2023
10. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial
Court and the learned Lower Appellate Court indicates no perversity in their
finding and the same are based on correct appreciation of evidence available on
record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgment of
conviction on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer only qua quantum of
sentence.
CONCLUSION
11. The complaint in the present case was instituted on 15.06.2019.
Since his conviction, the petitioner has grown into a law-abiding citizen and
desires to live a peaceful life. He is not involved in any other criminal activity
after his conviction in the present case and during the pendency of the present
revision. As per his custody certificate, there are no other criminal cases
pending against him. Out of the total sentence awarded of 1 year, he has
undergone actual sentence of 2 months and 4 days. Accordingly, this Court is
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165738
2023:PHHC:165738
of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence of
simple imprisonment of 1 year awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the
period already undergone by him.
12. Consequently, judgment dated 09.02.2023 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka confirming the conviction of the petitioner
is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated 09.11.2022 is modified to the
extent that the sentence of simple imprisonment for 1 year awarded to the
petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him.
13. In view of the above discussion, the present petition is partially
allowed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
21.12.2023
Ajay Goswami
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165738
5 of 5
