CIVIL APPEAL 1032 of 2001 on 27 March 1993

Criminal Revision No. 1032 of 2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

Criminal Revision No. 1032 of 2001Date of Decision: March 26, 2009

Vinod Krishan

...........Petitioner

Versus

Subhash Chand and another

..........Respondents

Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina

Present: Mr.A.S.Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner-Amicus Curiae.Mr.Vishal Garg,Advocate for respondent No.1None for respondent No.2 **

Sabina, J.

Petitioner- Vinod Krishan was convicted for an offenceunder Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafterreferred to as `the Act') by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Chandigarhvide judgment dated 22.12.1995. Vide order of even date, petitioner wassentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and directed topay a fine of Rs.500/- . Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed an appealand the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarhvide order dated 13.7.2001. Hence, the present revision petition.

The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Courtin para 2 of its judgment, are as under:- “ Briefly put the facts of the case are that accused approached the complainant for the supply of round structure iron and the samewas supplied to him. To discharge his liability, he issued acheque in favour of the complainant drawn on New Bank of Indiabearing No. 252474 dated 27.3.1993 for a sum of Rs. 1,49,407/-.On presentation of the said cheque to his banker for itsencashment, the same was received back dishonoured on accountof insufficient funds in the account of the accused. Complainantrequested the accused to clear the payment of the disputed chequebut without any result. A lega notice was served upon the accusedgiving 15 days time to clear the payment. Despite service of thenotice, appellant had failed to make the payment of the chequeamount.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now thepetitioner is 65 years old and was facing trial since the year 1993. Out ofthe cheque amount of Rs. 1,49,407/- petitioner has deposited Rs.1,35,000/-.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged theconviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act and has submittedthat sentence qua imprisonment be reduced to already undergone. Fine isstated to have been deposited.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has submitted thatrespondent No.1 may be allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by thepetitioner with the Registry and he has no objection if the sentence quaimprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to already undergone by him.Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner under Section138 of the Act is maintained. However, his sentence qua imprisonment is reduced to already undergone by him. Respondent No.1 is allowed towithdraw the amount of Rs, 1,35,000/- deposited by the petitioner videreceipt No. 7/2001 on 23.7.2001 (original receipt is also on record)

This petition is disposed of accordingly.

(Sabina) Judge

March 26, 2009arya