Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashok vs Khajan Singh on 11 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035192
CRR-1524-2009 -1- 2024:PHHC:035192
250 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-1524-2009
Date of decision: 11.03.2024
Ashok ....Petitioner
Versus
Khazan Singh ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate
for the petitioner
None for the respondent
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
1. The instant revision petition has been preferred against the
judgment dated 22.05.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Gurgaon whereby the judgment of conviction dated 15.09.2008 passed by
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon in criminal case no. 79 dated 11.02.2002
filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter
'NI Act') and Section 420 of the IPC, was upheld. Vide order of sentence dated
17.09.2008, the petitioner was sentenced as under:-
Offence Sentence
Section138 NI Act Rigorous imprisonment of 2 years and a fine of
Rs. 1000/-, in default of which rigorous
imprisonment of 1 month
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. The facts, in brief, are that in the month of July, 2001, petitioner-
accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the respondent-complainant.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035192
CRR-1524-2009 -2- 2024:PHHC:035192
To discharge his liability, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing no. 535765
dated 20.10.2001 for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The said cheque was dishonoured
when presented for encashment on 28.12.2001 with the remarks 'insufficient
funds.' The petitioner had issued another cheque bearing no. 535766 dated
07.01.2002 for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-, which was also dishonoured on
presentation for encashment. Thereafter, a legal notice was served on the
petitioner to call upon him to make the payment. Since he failed to make the
requisite payment in the stipulated time, the instant complaint was filed.
3. On finding a prima facie case, notice of accusation was served
upon the petitioner on 13.04.2003. The complainant examined 4 witnesses to
prove its case. All the incriminating evidence was put to the petitioner-accused
in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein he pleaded
false implication and examined 3 witnesses in his defence.
4. After assessing all the material available on record, the petitioner
was convicted by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 15.09.2008.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the learned lower Appellate
Court wherein the appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 22.05.2009. The
sentence of the petitioner was suspended by this Court vide order dated
15.03.2010.
CONTENTIONS
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing
the impugned judgment of conviction dated 15.09.2008 on merits and restricts
his prayer to modification of the order of quantum of sentence dated 17.09.2008
to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioner as has already
undergone a period of 9 months 26 days of custody.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035192
CRR-1524-2009 -3- 2024:PHHC:035192
OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
paper-book with his able assistance.
7. 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 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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.
8. As per the custody certificate produced by the learned State
counsel, details of custody period of the petitioner are tabulated as under:-
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035192
CRR-1524-2009 -4- 2024:PHHC:035192
Sr Particulars Period Duration
No.
1. Custody under trial - -
2. Custody after conviction 22.05.2009 to 9 months 26 days
17.03.2010
3. Interim bail - -
4. Actual custody period after 9 months 26 days
conviction
5. Actual undergone period 9 months 26 days
6. Earned remission 3 months 5 days
7. Total sentence including 1 year 1 month 1
remission day
9. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial
Court indicates no perversity in their finding and the same are based on correct
appreciation of evidence available on record. Moreover, 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
10. The complaint(supra) in the present case was lodged on
11.02.2002 and the petitioner has been suffering the agony of protracted trial
since the last 22 years. Since his conviction, the petitioner has grown into a law-
abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. As per his custody certificate,
he is not involved in any other criminal case and out of the total sentence of 2
years in this case, he has undergone actual sentence of 9 months 26 days.
Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of
justice, if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 2 years awarded to the
petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
11. Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of in the following
terms:-
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035192
CRR-1524-2009 -5- 2024:PHHC:035192
(i) The judgment dated 22.05.2009 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon upholding conviction of
the petitioner is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated
17.09.2008 is modified to the extent that the sentence of
rigorous imprisonment for 2 years along with default
mechanism awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period
of sentence already undergone by him.
(ii) The sentence of fine of an amount of Rs. 1000/-
imposed upon the petitioner by the trial Court is increased to
Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner is directed to deposit the
increased amount of fine in the trial Court within one month
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and in
case of default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall be
liable to be taken into custody and made to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one month.
12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
11.03.2024
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035192
5 of 5
