Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kailash Chand vs Sheela Devi And Another on 28 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012626
CRR-2230-2023 (O&M) 1
268 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-2230-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 28.01.2025
KAILASH CHAND
...PETITIONER
V/S
SHEELA DEVI AND ANOTHER ..RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Ashish Grewal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG Haryana.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment
dated 01.09.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, vide
which, judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated
03.12.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Narnaul in a
complaint case filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act') have been upheld.
2. The petitioner was sentenced as under:
Offence Sentence
138 NI Act Simple Imprisonment for one year with a
compensation of Rs. 25,000/-
3. Brief facts of the present case are that the present complaint has
been filed by the complainant with the allegations inter-alia that the accused
took a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- for his business and home expenses from the
complainant. At the time of taking loan it was agreed that the whole amount of
the loan shall be paid within short period of time. The accused failed to repay
the borrowed amount despite several requests for repayment from the
complainant. Thereafter the accused-petitioner issued one cheque bearing
no.000014 dated 22.01.2018 of Andhra Bank Branch opposite Panchayat
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012626
CRR-2230-2023 (O&M) -2-
Bhawan, Narnaul, District Mahendergarh against his account No.1895101
0049501. The petitioner told the complainant that he will repay the amount
within short time. In case he failed to make the payment the complainant can
produce the cheque in the bank for collection. The cheque was duly signed by
the accused-petitioner and he assured that he will have sufficient amount in his
account for the repayment. That the accused failed to repay the amount as
promised and thereupon the cheque No.000014 dated 22.01.2018 was
presented in the complainant's Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Branch Narnaul,
Mohindergarh, Haryana for collection. The cheque was returned unpaid on the
ground of "funds insufficient". Return memo dated 21.03.2018 was issued.
Thereafter, the complainant informed the accused about the dishonour of above
said cheque. Then due intimation and notice was given to the accused by the
complainant through a legal notice on 05.04.2018. But the accused-petitioner
neither replied nor made the payment of the cheque amount. Hence, the said
complaint.
4. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated
03.12.2019 passed by learned trial Court, which has also been upheld by
learned lower Appellate Court vide judgment dated 01.09.2023.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing
the impugned judgment of conviction dated 01.09.2023 on merits and restricts
his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated
03.12.2019 to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioner.
Petitioner has undergone a total period of 04 months and 03 days of
imprisonment out of total sentence of one year awarded to him.
6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the
petitioner on the ground that learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned
judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record, which
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012626
CRR-2230-2023 (O&M) -3-
has also been upheld by the learned lower Appellate Court and as such, he does
not deserve any leniency.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
with their able assistance.
8. 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 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.
9. 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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012626
CRR-2230-2023 (O&M) -4-
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 modification of quantum of sentence.
10. The present complaint is of the year 2018 and the petitioner has
been suffering the agony of protracted trial for last 6 years. Since his
conviction, the petitioner has grown into law-abiding citizen and desire to live
a peaceful life. Perusal of record indicates that, petitioner has undergone total
custody of 04 months and 03 days out of total sentence of 1 year awarded to
him.
11. 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.
12. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of in the following
terms:-
(i) The judgment dated 01.09.2023 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, affirming the judgment of
conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated
03.12.2019 is modified to the extent that the sentence of simple
imprisonment for one year awarded to the petitioner is reduced to
the period of sentence already undergone by him. However, the
compensation as awarded by the learned trial Court would remain
intact and respondent would be at liberty to recover the same in
accordance with law.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
January 28, 2025 JUDGE
Ajay Goswami
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
