In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
Criminal Revision No.1306 of 2008
.....
Date of decision:16.3.2009
Gurnam Singh
.....Petitioner
v.
M/s Deodhar Timber, Jagadhri and another
.....Respondents
....
Present: Mr. H.S. Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Panwar, Advocate for the respondents.
.....
S.S. Saron, J.
This revision petition has been filed against the order dated
5.7.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar
whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment and order dated
10.4.2007 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Jagadhri has been dismissed.
The respondent-M/s Dheodhar Timber, Jagadhri filed a
complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (`Act’ – for short) read with Section 420 Indian Penal
Code (`IPC’ – for short) on the ground that the petitioner in discharge of his
existing liability had issued one account payee cheque dated 21.5.2005
amounting to Rs.2 Lacs drawn on the Punjab National Bank, Deodhar. It
was assured that as and when the said cheque was presented for encashment
the same would be honoured. The cheque in question was presented by the
complainant-respondent No.1 for encashment in her bank i.e. Punjab
Cr. Revision No.1306/2008
[2]
National Bank, Aggarsain Chowk, Jagadhri but the same was returned with
the endorsement “insufficient funds” vide memo dated 26.5.2005. The
complainant-respondent No.1 issued a registered notice dated 6.6.2005
through her counsel, despite that the petitioner did not make necessary
payment. Accordingly, the complaint was filed. On finding a prima facie
case against the petitioner, he was summoned vide order dated 23.1.2006.
The substance of allegations was served on 25.3.2006. The complainant-
respondent No.1 produced documents and led evidence in support of her
case.
The learned Magistrate after considering the evidence and
material on record convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section
138 of the Act. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of
one year for the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Act. It was
ordered that out of the fine, a sum of Rs.2,37,000/- be given to the
complainant as compensation. In default of payment of fine except
compensation part, the accused shall undergo further simple imprisonment
for a period of six months.
In appeal the sentence of imprisonment from one year was
reduced to that of six months. The order otherwise was upheld.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
It may be noticed that under Section 29(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.’ – for short) it has been provided that the Court
of a Magistrate of the first class may pass a sentence of imprisonment for a
term not exceeding three years or a fine not exceeding Rs.10,000/- or both.
Therefore, the imposition of fine of Rs.3 Lacs by the Judicial Magistrate Ist
Cr. Revision No.1306/2008
[3]
Class, Jagadhri was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 29(2)
Cr.P.C. The compensation that is awarded of Rs.2,37,000/- is in
consonance with the provisions of Section 357 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the amount of Rs.2,37,000/- shall be treated as
compensation payable by the petitioner to the complainant in terms of
Section 357 Cr.P.C. However, the amount of fine is reduced from Rs.3 Lacs
to Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner in the event of default of payment of fine, it
is ordered shall undergo simple imprisonment of four months instead of six
months as ordered by the trial Magistrate and upheld by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri.
Accordingly, with the modification in the sentence of fine from
Rs.3 Lacs to Rs.10,000/- and the reduction in the period of simple
imprisonment from six months to four months in the event of default of
payment of fine, the revision is disposed of.
March 16, 2009. (S.S. Saron)
Judge
*hsp*