Punjab-Haryana High Court

Lakhbir Singh vs Amarjit Kaur on 13 March, 2024

                                                        Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037907




                                                                  2024:PHHC:037907
Criminal Revision No. 846 of 2008                                        -1-

233
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH

                                          Criminal Revision No. 846 of 2008(O&M)
                                          Date of Decision: 13.03.2024

Lakhbir Singh
                                                               ........Petitioner

                                         Versus

Amarjit Kaur
                                                               ........Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:     Mr. Manveen Pheruman, Advocate for
             Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate
             for the petitioner

             Mr. Sandeep Singh, DAG Punjab
                                   ****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated

26.04.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar whereby the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.04.2007 passed by

learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar in complaint case No. 539 of

13.06.2001/21.03.2006 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

1881 registered at Police Station Ramdas, Amritsar has been upheld. The

petitioner was sentenced as under:-

Offence under                                          Sentence
Section
138 of the Negotiable             RI for 1 ½ years and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in
Instruments Act                   default of which RI for 1 month


FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Briefly, the facts are that the complainant and the petitioner were the

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037907

2024:PHHC:037907

friends and they have the close confidence with each other. The petitioner was

running a business of commission agent for which the petitioner borrowed the

money from the complainant to attract the customers and to invest the same in

the business. The complainant collected the amount from the various resources

and paid the amount to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 15,05,000/- on the

different dates and the petitioner has promised to pay the interest on the said

amount at the rate of 2 % per month. The petitioner gave the cheque to the

complainant for an amount of Rs. 15 lacs and he paid the cash amount of

Rs. 5000/- to the complainant. The complainant presented the cheque and the

same was bounced because of "insufficient funds".

3. On assessing the material available on record, the learned trial Court

vide judgment and dated 11.04.2007 convicted and sentenced the petitioner-

accused as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the

petitioner-accused preferred an appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court

which was dismissed vide judgment dated 26.04.2008.

CONTENTIONS

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing

the impugned judgment of conviction dated 11.04.2007 on merits and restricts

his prayer to modification of the order of quantum of sentence to that of the

sentence already undergone by petitioner as Lakhbir Singh has already

undergone a period of about 01 month of custody. He further submits that since

his conviction, he has not been involved in any other criminal activity.

5. 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

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037907

2024:PHHC:037907

learned lower Appellate Court and as such, he does not deserve any leniency.

OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-

book with their 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. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037907

2024:PHHC:037907

Court and the learned lower Appellate Court indicates no perversity in their

findings 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 to quantum

of sentence qua the petitioner.

CONCLUSION

9. The complaint in the present case was instituted on 13.06.2001. The

petitioner has been facing protracted proceedings for about 23 years and is not

involved in any other criminal activity after his conviction in the present case

and during the pendency of the present revision. Since his conviction, the

petitioner has grown into a law-abiding citizens and desire to live a peaceful life.

As per his custody certificate, he is not involved in any other case and has

undergone about 01 month of custody out of total sentence of 1 ½ years in the

instant case.

10. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the

interest of justice, if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 1 ½ years

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

11. Consequently, the present revision is disposed of in the following

terms:-

(i) The judgment dated 26.04.2008 passed by the Additional

Sessions Judge, Amritsar confirming the conviction of the petitioner

is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated 11.04.2007 is

modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for

1 ½ years along with default mechanism awarded to the petitioner is

reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him.

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037907

2024:PHHC:037907

(ii) The sentence of fine of an amount of Rs. 5000/- imposed upon

the petitioner 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.

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

disposed of.