Partly allowed

Antosh Bhardwaj v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Nov 2009CRR/1317/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision regarding a dishonoured cheque case, the High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to match the time already undergone by the petitioner, considering full payment of compensation as a ground for leniency.

What did the court decide?

The sentence awarded under Section 138 was reduced to the one the petitioner had already undergone.

Antosh Bhardwaj Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

**Crl. Revision No. 1317 of 2009 Date of Decision: 6.11.2009 *****

Antosh Bhardwaj

.. Petitioner

Vs.

State of Haryana & Anr.

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,

¶10

Present:Mr. N.C. Kindra, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG Haryana.

¶12

**Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate for respondent-complainant. *****

¶13

ARVIND KUMAR, J.

¶14

The petitioner was tried by the learned Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with the allegations that the cheque amounting to Rs.2 lacs, issued by the petitioner, in order to discharge the outstanding liability towards respondent Pardeep Deswal, was dis-honoured. On conclusion of trial, the charge against the petitioner was found proved by the learned trial court and accordingly she was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year besides she was directed to pay Rs.3 lacs to the complainant as compensation in terms of Section 357 Cr.P.C. e

¶15

The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate Court below, leading to the institution of the present criminal revision.

¶16

It emerges from the record and not disputed by counsel for the

¶17

¶18

complainant that during pendency of the instant revision petition, the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.31 lacs on three different occasions, to the respondent-complainant.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has already undergone about 2 month's imprisonment in relation to the present dispute and she has already paid an amount of Rs.3 lacs against the cheque amount of Rs.2 lacs and she has already suffered the agony of trial and that of appeal for the last about four years. He prayed for taking a lenient view against the petitioner, who is a lady.

¶20

The arguments have been scanned. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case that the complainant has been paid the entire amount of compensation, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner deserves leniency in the matter of sentence. Therefore, the order of conviction of the petitioner is upheld. However, the sentence awarded to her under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as mentioned above, is reduced to the one already undergone by her.

¶21

With the above modification, the instant revision petition stands disposed of.

¶22

(ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE

¶23

November 6,2009 Jiten

Antosh Bhardwaj v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Antosh Bhardwaj v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Sahabuddin Vs Roshni and Ors.

M/S Bharti Airtel Ltd. and Anr. Vs Labour Enforcement Officer (Central)

Manmohan Singh Vs Ranjeet Kaur and Anr.

Jagjit Singh Mann Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Dinesh Chander Vs State of Haryana