Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dalbir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 20 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040301
2024:PHHC:040301
244 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-4076-2015
Date of decision: 20.03.2024
DALBIR SINGH
...PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Rajeev Godara, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.
Ms. Simran, Advocate for
Mr. Nitin Thatai, Advocate for respondent No.2.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (ORAL)
This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated
07.10.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide which,
judgment of conviction and order of quantum of sentence dated 23.02.2013 and
27.02.2013 respectively, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa in a
complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter
referred to 'NI Act') has been upheld. The petitioner was sentenced as under:
Offence Sentence
138 NI Act 06 SI with compensation of
Rs.3,71,990/-
2. Briefly put, the facts arisen out of the complaint's case are that the
complainant Company is engaged in the business of financing and in order to
purchase Mahindra Bolero Camper Vehicle under Auto Loan Agreement,
Dalbir Singh (petitioner herein) took a loan of Rs.3,35,000/- and as per terms
and conditions of the agreement and other loan documents, he was further
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040301
CRR-4076-2015 2 2024:PHHC:040301
required to pay the loan amount in 47 monthly installments of Rs.9095/- each
along with agreed interest and also other charges of the complainant company.
In order to discharge his liability, he issued a cheque in favour of the
complainant company, worth Rs.3,71,990/- relating to Hisar Sirsa Kshetria
Gramin Bank, Amritsar Kalan Branch, District Sirsa, bearing No.618983 dated
21.05.2008 out of his account No.2063 with the said bank. But when the said
cheque was sent in the said bank for collection the same was dishonoured on
account 'INSUFFICIENT FUNDS', in respect of which, the present complaint
has been filed by the complainant after issuance of legal notice to the
petitioner.
3. The petitioner was convicted vide judgement dated 23.02.2013
passed by the learned trial Court, which has also been upheld by lower
Appellate Court vide judgment dated 07.10.2015.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing
the impugned judgment of conviction dated 23.02.2013 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 he has already undergone a
period of 03 months and 25 days and is not 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 also been
upheld by the learned lower Appellant Court and as such, he does not deserve
any leniency.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
with their able assistance.
7. In Deo Narain Mandal v. State State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257, a
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040301
CRR-4076-2015 3 2024:PHHC:040301
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
Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is 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.
9. The complaint in the present case was lodged on 31.07.2008 and
the petitioner has been suffering the agony of protracted trial for more than last
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040301
CRR-4076-2015 4 2024:PHHC:040301
15 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 case and has undergone actual sentence of 03 months
and 10 days, out of total sentence of 06 months, in the instant case.
10. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the
interest of justice, if the sentence 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:-
(i) The judgment dated 07.10.2015 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa affirming the judgment of
conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated
27.02.2013 is modified to the extent that the sentence of simple
imprisonment for 06 months along with default mechanism
awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence
already undergone by him.
(ii) The sentence qua payment of compensation shall
remain intact and the respondent No.2-complainant will be at
liberty to recover the same in accordance with law.
12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
March 20, 2024 JUDGE
manisha
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
