KRISHAN RAJ ALIAS BITTU v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.
CRR/780/2016 · 2026-05-20
Anoop Chitkara
Criminal Appealbody2016
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2016 DAILYLAW 3883 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2016 DAILYLAW 3883 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
CRR-780-2016 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-780-2016
JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED ON OPERATIVE PART PRONOUNCED OR FULL UPLOADED ON 06.05.2026 20.05.2026 FULL PRONOUNCED 20.05.2026
Krishan Raj alias Bittu
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
… Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Abhishek Das, Advocate for
Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioner. Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab. Ms. Pooja Rana, Legal aid counsel
for respondent No.2. ****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
TRIAL COURT Name of the Complainant Pawan Puri Name of the accused/ convict Krishan Raj @ Bittu Cheque Amount Rs. 2,50,000/- Complaint Case No. 5393 of 2009 Date of decision: 08.11.2013 Conviction under sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act Sentence imposed Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 year along with a compensation amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-
SESSIONS COURT Names of convict Krishan Raj @ Bittu Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 2013 CNR No.
CRA-355 of 2014 Date of decision 19.11.2015
1. Challenging the above captioned judgment passed by the trial Court, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments ANJU RANI 2026.05.20 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh
CRR-780-2016 2 Act, 1881, which was affirmed by the Sessions Court as mentioned above, the convict has come up before this Court by filing the present criminal revision petition. 2. By order dated 13.05.2016, the execution of the sentence of imprisonment was suspended, and as per the petitioner’s Counsel, the convict is not in custody in this case. 3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not in a financial capacity to pay the amount, and he would confine his submissions for reduction of sentence to that which the convict has already undergone. 4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant opposes the reduction of the sentence. 5. As per the judgment passed by the trial Court, the cheque amount was Rs. 2,50,000/-
6. As per the judgment passed by the trial Court, the sentence, fine, and compensation amount awarded in favor of the complainant and against the accused petitioner are as follows:
SENTENCE AWARDED BY THE TRIAL COURT Sentence of Imprisonment Compensation Amount/ Fine Amount Default imprisonment in case of non-payment of compensation/fine RI for one year Rs. 2,50,000/- ----
7.
In the appeal filed by the accused/convict, the conviction, sentence, and compensation were upheld. 8. As per the custody certificate dated 05.05.2026 in the present complaint, the petitioner has undergone custody of 05 months & 30 days. 9. The per-day imprisonment for the fine/compensation amount comes to:
PER-DAY IMPRISONMENT FOR THE FINE/COMPENSATION AMOUNT A B C D E FINE + COMPENSATION AMOUNT IMPOSED AMOUNT DEPOSITED AMOUNT OUTSTANDING CUSTODY AS OF DATE FINE + COMPENSATION AMOUNT PROPORTIONATE TO PER DAY CUSTODY [C÷D=E] Rs. 2,50,000/- NIL Rs. 2,50,000/- 180 days Rs. 1389/- per day approx.. 10. The above calculation indicates that the convict compromised his liberty for the non- payment of money, which comes to a meager amount of Rs. 1389/- approximately every day. 11. Given the cheque amount, compensation awarded, and the sentence already undergone, the ends of justice shall be met if the sentence is reduced to the already ANJU RANI 2026.05.20 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh
CRR-780-2016 3 undergone. 12. The petition is partly allowed to the extent that although the conviction is maintained and upheld, the sentence of substantive imprisonment is reduced to what the petitioner has already undergone. 13. The personal bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged. 14. Petition is partly allowed to the extent mentioned above. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE May 20, 2026 Anju Rani
Whether speaking/reasoned YES Whether reportable NO
ANJU RANI 2026.05.20 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh