Criminal Revision No. 771 of 2001 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Criminal Revision No. 771 of 2001
Date of Decision: 6.3.2009
Maha Lakshmi Traders and Another
...Petitioners
Versus
M/s Amrit Sons
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. Baldev Raj Mahajan, Advocate
for the petitioners.
None for the respondent.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)
Case of the complainant before the Courts below was that he
had given a loan of Rs.50,000/- to accused on 31.5.1996. In discharge
of the loan, accused had issued a cheque dated 30.3.1997. The cheque
was presented and the payment was refused by the Bank vide memo
dated 30.5.1997 on account that payment has been stopped by the
drawer. Petitioner was convicted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Amritsar, and sentenced to one year imprisonment and to pay
fine of Rs.50,000/-. The Appellate Court reduced the sentence to six
months and fine was reduced to Rs.25,000/-.
Counsel for the petitioner has stated that infact the loan was
returned by earlier cheque dated 4.12.1996 which was encashed by the
complainant. Therefore, the second cheque Ex.PA which had bounced
Criminal Revision No. 771 of 2001 2
was not for discharge of any liability. Counsel states that by issuance of
cheque Ex.DW.1/A dated 4.12.1996, liability, if any, stood discharged.
Two Courts below have appreciated this contention and held
the same to be untenable, holding that by issuance of cheque,
presumption operate against the petitioner as cheque was supposedly
issued for discharge of liability. A feeble attempt has been made by
counsel for the petitioner to say that the presumption has been wrongly
drawn by the two Courts below.
This Court in a revision petition cannot do re-appraisal or re-
appreciation of the evidence.
At this stage, counsel for the petitioner has stated that the
cheque was issued in the year 1997. About 12 years are going to
elapse. Therefore, petitioner has already suffered protracted trial and by
sending him behind the bars no useful purpose will be served.
Counsel for the petitioner has stated that complainant can be
compensated for the amount of cheque.
Accordingly, sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced
to already undergone. However, the amount of fine is enhanced to
Rs.50,000/-. The amount of fine shall be disbursed to the complainant.
In case, the fine is not deposited, the benefit in reduction of
sentence shall not accrue to the petitioner.
With the observations made above, the present petition is
disposed off.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)
Judge
March 6, 2009
“DK”