2002(3) ALL MR (JOURNAL) 30
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
K.C. GUPTA, J.
Sat Pal Vs. State Of Punjab
Criminal Revision No.1452 of 2001
6th December, 2001
Petitioner Counsel: Mr. MANDEEP S. BEDI, Mr. AJAY KUMAR
Respondent Counsel: Mr. R. P. S. ATHWAL
Negotiable Instruments Act (1881) S.138 - Sentence - Accused petitioner paying amount of cheque and fine and was also in custody for 18 days - Complainant not interested in pursuing the complaint - Sentence of one year's RI and fine of Rs.4000/- reduced to period already undergone.
JUDGMENT :- This revision petition is filed by Sat Pal son of Shankar Dass against the judgment dated 10.9.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby his appeal was dismissed and the judgment and order dated 16.8.2000, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, vide which the petitioner was found guilty and was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.4000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for one month was upheld.
2. Briefly stated, the facts are that petitioner issued cheque No.A/10-459241 dated 8.11.1997 from his saving A/c No.16858 L.F.77 payable at State Bank of India, Gurdaspur, for a sum of Rs.33,300/- in favour of complainant Surjit Kaur. The said cheque was presented for encashment by Smt. Surjit Kaur through her Bankers, but the same was dishonoured vide endorsement dated 6.3.1998 on account of 'insufficient funds'.
3. Thereafter, Smt. Surjit Kaur issued a legal notice to the petitioner on 12.3.1998 which was duly served and acknowledged by him but inspite of that notice, the petitioner failed to make payment of the amount and as such, a complaint was field.
4. Smt. Surjit Kaur complainant had appeared in this Court through her counsel Shri. Ajay Kumar Sapehia, Advocate, and had admitted that the complainant had received whole of the amount from Sat Pal Petitioner on 19.9.2001 and she was not interested to pursue the complaint and further, she had also filed an affidavit dated 18.9.2001 which is on the file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had paid the amount of fine and had also remained in custody for 18 days after his conviction and further had also paid whole of the amount and as such, a lenient view be taken against him. Keeping in view the facts circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone. With this modification in the sentence, this revision petition is dismissed.