Present: Mr Mr for Mr Mr for Mr 1. Thi dated 09.11.201 Sahib, vide whi dated 04.11.200 Fatehgarh Sahib Instruments Act 2. The 138 NI Act 3. Co Fatehgarh Sahi ! Mr. Ravi Gakhar, Advocate for Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Nitin Meel, Advocate for Mr. K.B. Raheja, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab. """" #$ % This revision petition has been p 2011 passed by learned Addition hich, judgment of conviction and 2009 passed by learned Addition hib in a complaint case filed und ct, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as The petitioner was sentenced as und & RI for 01 year with a payment of fine to un Complainant Punjab State Ware ahib through Surjit Singh Wareh '()'*+$,% -&./010.)**+* te preferred against the judgment tional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh nd order on quantum of sentence tional Chief Judicial Magistrate, under Section 138 of Negotiable as ‘NI Act’) have been upheld. under: h a fine of Rs.5,000/; in default of undergo RI for 02 months. arehousing Corporation Limited, rehouse Manager, has filed the nt rh ce te, le of d, he MANISHA 2025.02.17 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment '()'*+$ present complai short ‘Act’) ag herein) partners Khamanon, Dis complainant gav milling purpose milled rice to th remained with remaining padd 31.12.2000 for Corporation, Ch The complainan i.e. State Bank account No.71 complainant by there are ‘Insuff cheque back be counsel Sh. Ha dishonoured che payment was no 4. The 04.11.2009 pas learned lower A 5. Lea the impugned ju his prayer to m $,% laint under section 138 of the N against accused Sukhdev Kumar ers of M/s Shree Rice Mills, istrict Fatehgarh Sahib on the gr gave 97313 bags weighing 63253. ses. The accused firm returned 85 the complainant and 11519 bags th the accused firm. It is alleged ddy the accused firm issued a ch or Rs. 17,00,000/; in favour of t Chandigarh of State Bank of Pati ant presented the above said cheq k of Patiala, branch Khamanon M 713. However the said cheque by the banker on 01.02.2001 with ufficient Funds’ in the account. It i being dishonoured, complainant h Hardip Singh, Advocate on 07. cheque within 15 days from the r not made. Hence, the present comp The petitioner was convicted and assed by learned trial Court, wh Appellate Court vide judgment da Learned counsel for the petitioner judgment of conviction dated 09. modification of the order on quan Negotiable Instrument Act (for ar and Chaman Lal (petitioner s, Sanghol (Ucha Pind), Tehsil ground that in the year 1998;99 53.4 M.T. to the accused firm for 85794 bags i.e. 55766.10 Μ.T. of gs weighing 7487.35 M.T. paddy ged that in lieu of the price of, cheque No.CA/24;510917 dated f the Punjab State Warehousing atiala, branch Khamanon Mandi. eque on 01.02.2001 to its banker n Mandi to credit the same in its ue was returned back to the ith the memo with remarks that It is alleged that on receipt of said t has issued notice through their 7.02.2001 to make payment of e receipt of notice. However, the mplaint. d sentenced vide judgment dated which has also been upheld by dated 09.11.2011. contends that he is not assailing 09.11.2011 on merits and restricts uantum of sentence to that of the or er sil 99 or of dy of, ed ng di. er its he at id eir of he ed by ng ts he MANISHA 2025.02.17 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment '()'*+$ sentence already passed by this five months out 6. respondent No. passed a well;r available on rec Court and as suc 7. I ha with their able a 8. In Judge Bench o sentence is not maximum term sentence, a disc case, which inc offence is com determining the arbitrarily or wh should be award the sentence is Further, a two J sentence also se accused realise t at large. The law $,% ) ady undergone by the petitioner. is Court, petitioner has undergone ut of total sentence of one year. , learned State counsel o.1 opposes the prayer of the petit reasoned judgment based on co record, which has also been upheld such, he does not deserve any lenie I have heard learned counsel for the e assistance. In of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ot a mere formality in criminal rm is prescribed by the statute iscretionary element is vested in t includes factors like gravity of the ommitted, age of the accused, the quantum of sentence and thi whimsically. After assessing all re arded bearing in mind the princip is neither excessively harsh nor d o Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supr , has rei serves a social purpose as it acts se the damage caused not only to th law in this regard is well settled th As per order dated 18.04.2012 one actual sentence of more than assisted by learned counsel for etitioner as learned trial Court has correct appreciation of evidence eld by the learned lower Appellate niency. the parties and perused the record , a Three urt has opined that awarding of al cases. When a minimum and te with regard to the period of in the Court. Background of each the offence, manner in which the d, should be considered while this discretion is not to be used l relevant factors, proper sentence ciple of proportionality to ensure r does it come across as lenient. upreme Court in !" reiterated that the imposition of acts as a deterrent by making the o the victim but also to the society that opportunities of reformation 12 an or as ce e rd ee of nd of ch he ile ed ce re nt. of he ty on MANISHA 2025.02.17 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment '()'*+$ must be grante attending circum manner in whic strike a balance the accused. 9. A p Court indicates appreciation of e petitioner has no restricted his pra 10. The been suffering conviction, the p a peaceful life. has undergone a of one year, in th 11. Acc interest of justic period already u 12. Con terms: (i) Ad jud dat rigo $,% ( nted and such discretion is to b cumstances of each case by notici hich the crime was committed and ce between the efficacy of law and A perusal of the judgment of convi es no perversity in its findings an of evidence available on record. M not assailed the judgment of conv prayer only qua modification of qu The present complaint is of the ye g the agony of protracted trial e petitioner has grown into law;ab e. As per order dated 18.04.2012 e actual sentence of more than fiv n the instant case. Accordingly, this Court is of the o stice, if the sentence awarded to t y undergone by him. Consequently, the present petition the judgment dated 09.11.2 Additional Sessions Judge, Fat judgment of conviction is upheld, dated 04.11.2009 is modified to t rigorous imprisonment for 01 year be exercised by evaluating all icing the nature of the crime, the and the conduct of the accused to and the chances of reformation of viction passed by the learned trial and the same is based on correct Moreover, learned counsel for the onviction on merits, rather he has quantum of sentence. year 2007 and the petitioner has ial for last 18 years. Since his abiding citizen and desires to live 2 passed by this Court, petitioner five months out of total sentence e opinion that it would be in the o the petitioner is reduced to the on is disposed of in the following 1.2011 passed by the learned atehgarh Sahib, affirming the d, however, the order of sentence o the extent that the sentence of ear along with default mechanism all he to of ial ct he as as is ve er ce he he ng ed he ce of m MANISHA 2025.02.17 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment '()'*+$ awa alre fine (ii) the cer fine ma 13. Pen disposed of. -2-34)*#* (i) (ii) $,% awarded to the petitioner is redu already undergone by him subject fine to be deposited in the Court. (ii) The petitioner is directed to the trial Court within one month certified copy of this order and in fine, the petitioner shall be liable made to undergo rigorous imprison Pending miscellaneous applicati * Whether speaking/reasoned ii) Whether reportable duced to the period of sentence ect to payment of Rs.10,000/; as to deposit the amount of fine in nth from the date of receipt of in case of default of payment of ble to be taken into custody and onment for one month. ation(s), if any, also stand(s) $ % Yes/No Yes/No ce as in of of nd (s) MANISHA 2025.02.17 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment