[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajender Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 6 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Reserved on : 09.02.2026
CRR-356-2026 (O&M)
Pronounced on : 06.03.2026
Uploaded on : 06.03.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is
pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full Judgment
Rajender Singh ...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
State of Haryana and another ...Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Present :- Mr. Shivek Thakur, Advocate for the applicant(s)-petitioner(s).
Ms. Chhavi Sharma, AAG Haryana.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J.
The instant criminal revision petition has been preferred against
the judgment dated 05.06.2024 and order of sentence dated 06.06.2024
passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhiwani, as well as the
judgment dated 19.07.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Bhiwani, vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and he
was convicted and sentenced as under:
Under Section Sentence
138 of the Negotiable Simple imprisonment for 01 year along
Instruments Act, with compensation to the tune of
1881 Rs.7,00,000/-, i.e., the cheque amount
along with 5% interest per annum from
the date of issuance of the cheque till
the date of judgment.
1 of 14
CRR-356-2026 (O&M)
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant
maintained cordial relations with the petitioner-accused, being partners in a
transport business. On 24.12.2018, the petitioner approached him with a
request for a loan for the marriage of his two daughters. Since the
complainant maintained good relations with the petitioner, he lent a sum of
Rs. 2,00,000/- to the latter through the bank on 24.12.2018. The complainant
further lent Rs. 2,00,000/- on 27.12.2018, 50,000/- on 14.03.2019; 75,000/-
on 16.03.2019; 75,000/- on 20.03.2019; and 50,000/- through bank on
22.03.2019 and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in cash on the same day. The
petitioner promised to return the aforesaid money to the complainant by
15.05.2019. In discharge of his liability, the petitioner issued a cheque
bearing No. 131424 dated 02.06.2019 of Rs. 7,00,000/-, drawn from his
IDBI Bank, Jind Branch account. The complainant presented the aforesaid
cheque for clearance in his HDFC Bank, Bhiwani account bearing No.
50100130803431 on 20.06.2019; however, the same was dishonoured on
presentation with the endorsement "funds insufficient" vide memo dated
21.06.2019.
3. The complainant then got served a Legal Notice, calling upon
the petitioner to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of legal
notice. However, the same was not done and a complaint under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act came to be filed before the Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Bhiwani. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial. The complainant stepped into the witness box as CW-1 and reiterated
the allegations made in the complaint. The complainant also produced
2 of 14
CRR-356-2026 (O&M)
documents Ex. C-1 i.e. original cheque bearing No. 131424 dated
02.06.2019 amounting to Rs. 7,00,000/-, Ex. C-2 i.e. return memo dated
21.06.2019, Ex. C-3 i.e. legal notice dated 26.06.2019, Ex C-4 i.e. postal
receipts dated 01.07.2019, Ex. C-5 i.e. track consignment and Ex. C-6 i.e.
account statement of the complainant and proved the relevant documents.
4. Vide judgment and order of sentence dated
05.06.2024/06.06.2024, the petitioner was convicted by the Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Bhiwani and sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for 01 year along with compensation to the tune of
Rs.7,00,000/-, i.e., the cheque amount along with 5% interest per annum
from the date of issuance of the cheque till the date of judgment. The
petitioner filed an appeal against the abovesaid judgment of conviction and
vide judgment dated 19.07.2025, the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani,
dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present petition has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he does not
wish to challenge the conviction and confines his prayer only to the quantum
of sentence. Hence, the factual matrix and merits of the case are not being
examined at this stage. He submits that the present matter pertains to the
year 2018/2019 and that no other criminal case has been registered against
the petitioner. Counsel further submits that the incident occurred in
2018/2019 and that the petitioner has faced the agony of a protracted trial for
nearly 7 years. He further submits that the petitioner is nearly 60 years of
age and is a driver by profession. He has four children to look after and that
he is the only earning member in his family. There is no other earning
3 of 14
CRR-356-2026 (O&M)
member to take care of family needs. He submits that ordinarily, a person
would be entitled to claim probation on the grounds as above but the
sentence imposed upon the petitioner may be reduced to the custody period
already undergone.
6. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the
submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and argued that the
prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the petitioner through
cogent, reliable, and convincing evidence brought on record during the trial. It
is further contended that the offence committed by the petitioner is of a serious
nature and, therefore, calls for the imposition of a stringent sentence. The
counsel submits that leniency in such cases would send a wrong signal to
society and undermine the administration of criminal justice. Hence, it is
imperative that adequate and deterrent punishment be imposed to ensure that
such acts do not recur and to maintain public confidence in the rule of law.
7. Service on respondent No.2 is not necessary at this juncture as
neither the conviction is being challenged nor the compensation awarded is
under challenge. Besides, the sentence awarded is one year and the
petitioner has already undergone an actual sentence of 6 months and 19
days, as on 07.02.2026. Besides, after the charge is framed, the State
becomes the prime custodian.
8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties and have gone through the documents appended with the instant
petition with their able assistance.
9. Since conviction is not being challenged by the learned Counsel
for the petitioner, hence, the merits of the case are not being adverted to. In
4 of 14
CRR-356-2026 (O&M)
order to appreciate the arguments of the petitioner on the issue of
punishment, the jurisprudence & legal philosophy behind sentencing needs
to be examined.
10. The Supreme Court has laid down certain principles to govern
the Courts in the matter of sentencing. Reference in this regard may be made
to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of
Punjab Vs. Prem Sagar & Ors (2008) 7 SCC 550. The relevant extract of
the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: -
'5. Whether the Court while awarding a sentence would
take recourse to the principle of deterrence or reform or
invoke the doctrine of proportionality, would no doubt
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
While doing so, however, the nature of the offence said to
have been committed by the accused plays an important
role. The offences which affect public health must be
dealt with severely. For the said purpose, the courts must
notice the object for enacting Article 47 of the
Constitution of India.
6. There are certain offences which touch our social
fabric. We must remind ourselves that even while
introducing the doctrine of plea bargaining in the Code
of Criminal Procedure, certain types of offences had been
kept out of the purview thereof. While imposing
sentences, the said principles should be borne in mind.
7. A sentence is a judgment on conviction of a crime. It is
resorted to after a person is convicted of the offence. It is
the ultimate goal of any justice-delivery system.
Parliament, however, in providing for a hearing on
sentence, as would appear from sub-section (2) of Section
5 of 14
CRR-356-2026 (O&M)
235, sub-section (2) of Section 248, Section 325 as also
Sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
has laid down certain principles. The said provisions lay
down the principle that the court in awarding the
sentence must take into consideration a large number of
relevant factors; sociological backdrop of the accused
being one of them.
8. Although a wide discretion has been conferred upon
the court, the same must be exercised judiciously. It
would depend upon the circumstances in which the crime
has been committed and his mental state. Age of the
accused is also relevant.
9. What would be the effect of the sentencing on the
society is a question which has been left unanswered by
the legislature. The Superior Courts have come across a
large number of cases which go to show anomalies as
regards the policy of sentencing. Whereas the quantum of
punishment for commission of a similar type of offence
varies from minimum to maximum, even where same
sentence is imposed, the principles applied are found to
be different. Similar discrepancies have been noticed in
regard to imposition of fine.
10. In Dhananjoy Chatterjee Alias Dhana v. State of
W.B. [(1994) 2 SCC 220], this Court held:
"15...Imposition of appropriate punishment is the
manner in which the courts respond to the society's
cry for justice against the criminals. Justice
demands that courts should impose punishment
befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public
abhorrence of the crime..."
6 of 14
CRR-356-2026 (O&M)
11. Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao and Another v. State of
A.P. [(1996) 6 SCC 241], following Dhananjoy
Chatterjee (supra), states the principles of deterrence and
retribution but the same cannot be categorized as right or
wrong. So much depends upon the belief of the judges.
12. In a recent decision in Shailesh Jasvantbhai and
Another v. State of Gujarat and Others [(2006) 2 SCC
359], this Court opined:
"7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates
conflicting claims and demands. Security of
persons and property of the people is an essential
function of the State. It could be achieved through
instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly,
there is a cross-cultural conflict where living law
must find answer to the new challenges and the
courts are required to mould the sentencing system
to meet the challenges. The contagion of
lawlessness would undermine social order and lay
it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out
criminal proclivity must be the object of law which
must be achieved by imposing appropriate
sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the
edifice of 'order' should meet the challenges
confronting the society. Friedman in his Law in
Changing Society stated that: "State of criminal
law continues to be--as it should be--a decisive
reflection of social consciousness of society."
Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law
should adopt the corrective machinery or
deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft
modulation, sentencing process be stern where it
should be, and tempered with mercy where it
7 of 14
CRR-356-2026 (O&M)
warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances
in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner
in which it was planned and committed, the motive
for commission of the crime, the conduct of the
accused, the nature of weapons used and all other
attending circumstances are relevant facts which
would enter into the area of consideration.
Relying upon the decision of this Court in Sevaka
Perumal v. State of T.N. [(1991) 3 SCC 471], this Court
furthermore held that it was the duty of every court to
award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the
offence and the manner in which it was executed or
committed etc.
xxx
18. Don M. Gottfredson in his essay on "Sentencing
Guidelines" in "Sentencing by Hyman Gross and Andrew
von Hirsch" opines:
"It is a common claim in the literature of criminal
justice and indeed in the popular press that there
is considerable "disparity" in sentencing. The
word "disparity" has become a prerogative and the
concept of "sentencing disparity" now carries with
it the connotation of biased or insidious practices
on the part of the judges. This is unfortunate in
that much otherwise valid criticism has failed to
separate justified variation from the unjustified
variation referred to as disparity. The phrase
"unwarranted disparity" may be preferred; not all
sentencing variation should be considered
unwarranted or disparate. Much of it properly
reflects varying degrees of seriousness in the
offense and/or varying characteristics of the
8 of 14
CRR-356-2026 (O&M)
offender. Dispositional variation that is based
upon permissible, rationally relevant and
understandably distinctive characteristics of the
offender and of the offense may be wholly justified,
beneficial and proper, so long as the variable
qualities are carefully monitored for consistency
and desirability over time. Moreover, since no two
offenses or offenders are identical, the labeling of
variation as disparity necessarily involves a value
judgment- that is, disparity to one person may be
simply justified variation to another. It is only
when such variation takes the form of differing
sentences for similar offenders committing similar
offenses that it can be considered disparate."
[Emphasis supplied]
The learned author further opines:
"In many jurisdictions, judicial discretion is nearly
unlimited as to whether or not to incarcerate an
individual; and bound only by statutory maxima,
leaving a broad range of discretion, as to the
length of sentence."
19. Kevin R. Reitz in Encyclopedia of Crime and
Justice, Second edition "Sentencing guidelines"
states:
"All guideline jurisdictions have found it necessary
to create rules that identify the factual issues at
sentencing that must be resolved under the
guidelines, those that are potentially relevant to a
sentencing decision, and those viewed as forbidden
considerations that may not be taken into account
by sentencing courts. One heated controversy,
9 of 14
CRR-356-2026 (O&M)
addressed differently across jurisdictions, is
whether the guideline sentence should be based
exclusively on crimes for which offenders have
been convicted ("conviction offenses"), or whether
a guideline sentence should also reflect additional
alleged criminal conduct for which formal
convictions have not been obtained ("non-
conviction offenses").
Another difficult issue of fact-finding at sentence for
guideline designers has been the degree to which trial
judges should be permitted to consider the personal
characteristics of offenders as mitigating factors when
imposing sentence. For example: Is the defendant a
single parent with young children at home? Is the
defendant a drug addict but a good candidate for drug
treatment? Has the defendant struggled to overcome
conditions of economic, social or educational deprivation
prior to the offense? Was the defendant's criminal
behavior explicable in part by youth, inexperience, or an
unformed ability to resist peer pressure? Most guideline
states, once again including all jurisdictions with
voluntary guidelines, allow trial courts latitude to
sentence outside of the guideline ranges based on the
Judge's assessment of such offender characteristics. Some
states, fearing that race or class disparities might be
exacerbated by unguided consideration of such factors,
have placed limits on the list of eligible concerns.
(However, such factors may indirectly affect the sentence,
since judges are permitted to base departures on the
offender's particular 'amenability' to probation (Frase,
1997).)"
20. Andrew von Hirsch and Nils Jareborg have divided
10 of 14
CRR-356-2026 (O&M)
the process of determining sentence into stages of
determining proportionality while determining a
sentence, namely:
1. What interests are violated or threatened by the
standard case of the crime- physical integrity, material
support and amenity, freedom from humiliation, privacy
and autonomy.
2. Effect of violating those interests on the living
standards of a typical victim- minimum well-being,
adequate well-being, significant enhancement
3. Culpability of the offender
4. Remoteness of the actual harm as seen by a reasonable
man.'
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pramod Kumar
Mishra Vs. State of UP (2023) 9 SCC 810, observed that punishment must not
be viewed as an act of vengeance but as a means of reformation and
reintegration of the offender into society. It was further held that an appropriate
sentence must be determined by considering a range of factors, including the
nature and circumstances of the offence, the offender's background, age,
mental and emotional condition, potential for rehabilitation, prior criminal
record, and the deterrent needs of the community. Sentencing, the Court noted,
involves a delicate exercise of judicial discretion where multiple social,
psychological, and moral factors must be balanced to ensure that justice serves
both societal protection and individual redemption.
12. The fundamental purpose of imposition of sentence is based
upon making an accused realize the consequences of the crime committed by
him and the creation of a dent in the life of the victims and also the social
11 of 14
CRR-356-2026 (O&M)
fabric. The same by itself does not oblige the Court to extend an opportunity
to a convict for reforming himself. The principles of proportionality have to
be balanced and the impact of the offence on the society as a whole and its
ramifications on the victim and the immediate collectives also have to be
examined.
13. A nine judge bench of the Supreme Court of the United States,
in Dennis CouncleMcGautha v. State of California reported as 402 U.S. 183
(1971), observed that the criteria governing sentencing neither furnish an
exhaustive list of relevant considerations nor indicate how various
circumstances should influence the decision-making process. In essence,
these standards merely suggest broad areas for consideration and underscore
the inherent difficulty in formulating uniform sentencing principles,
particularly in matters of grave offences. The Court further cautioned against
rigidly prescribing or mandating uniform standards for sentencing,
emphasizing that the principles governing punishment must depend upon the
facts and circumstances of each individual case, and that no straightjacket
formula can be universally applied.
14. In the aforesaid legal backdrop, and keeping in view the
established legal principles governing sentencing, it becomes imperative to
evaluate the mitigating circumstances relied upon by the petitioner and
relevant to the present case. The same are, therefore, extracted as under:-
i. The incident in question pertains to the year 2018/2019,
and nearly 7 years have elapsed since then. The petitioner
has already suffered the ordeal and anguish of protracted
12 of 14
CRR-356-2026 (O&M)
criminal proceedings spanning nearly seven years against
a sentence of 1 year simple imprisonment for an offence
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881.
ii. The petitioner has a potential of reform. He has not
indulged in any other crime ever.
iii. The petitioner was nearly 58 years of age at the time of
conviction in the year 2024 and is now close to turning
60 with a settled family life and children. An order to
undergo the remaining sentence is likely to impact the
future prospects of children and cause grave hardship to
the family. Besides, he has already undergone nearly 06
months and 19 days of actual sentence, as on 07.02.2026.
iv. The proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 are quasi criminal. The primary
object is to seek recovery of money. The trial Court has
already awarded the compensation equal to the cheque
amount and compensatory interest. Rights and interests
of the complainant are thus well protected.
v. It is well settled that the object of punishment is not
merely to deter but also to reform, and where an offender
demonstrates lawful conduct, the emphasis must shift
from retribution to reintegration into society.
15. Taking into consideration the facts noticed above and that the
13 of 14
CRR-356-2026 (O&M)
petitioner has faced the rigours of criminal prosecution for nearly 7 years
since the registration of the complaint and has already undergone more than
half of the sentence alongwith the other mitigating circumstances, I deem it
appropriate to partly allow the petition. While maintaining the judgment of
conviction passed by both the Courts, i.e., Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Bhiwani as well as the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, the order of
sentence passed is modified. The sentence awarded by the Trial Court and
as affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide judgment dated
19.07.2025, is modified and reduced to the period already undergone.
However, the awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/-, to be
given to the complainant (the cheque amount) along with 5% interest per
annum from the date of issuance of the cheque till the date of judgment, is
ordered to be maintained.
16. All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, are also
disposed of.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
06.03.2026 JUDGE
Mangal Singh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
14 of 14
