Dismissed

Angrej Singh v. Kashmiri Lal

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Aug 2009CRR/2133/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision regarding a cheque dishonour case, the High Court dismissed the petition. It held that the respondent had paid the compensation within the stipulated period, justifying the Lower Appellate Court's discretion to release him on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, finding no ground for interference.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed, thereby maintaining the order releasing the respondent on probation.

Angrej Singh Vs Kashmiri Lal — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl. Revision No. 2133 of 2008

¶3

Date of decision: 07.08.2009

¶4

M/s Angrej Singh and sons

¶5

..... PETITIONERS

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Kashmiri Lal, Partner M/s Mangat Ram Kashmiri Lal

¶8

..... RESPONDENT

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

¶10

Present : Mr. B.S.Virk, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶11

¶12

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)

¶13

The present petition has been preferred against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, dated 25.03.2008, vide which the respondent has been released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year on his furnishing probation bonds in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety in the like amount in view of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 with the supervision of the District Probation Officer.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner contends that a complaint was made under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on 07.01.1999. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 12.09.2007 after holding the respondent guilty of the offence convicted him and then sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- to the petitioner within a period of

¶15

Crl. Revision No. 2133 of 2008

¶16

-2-

¶17

three months from the date of passing of the judgment. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner got the amount after a period of 9 years and now the learned Lower Appellate Court also has released him on probation and has not penalized him for his fault although holding him guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He contends that the sentence as granted by the trial Court should not have been interfered with by the learned Lower Appellate Court.

¶18

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case.

¶19

A perusal of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge would show that the respondent had within the time stipulated paid the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.. 60,000/-. The Lower Appellate Court has keeping in view the bona fides of the respondent, who, within the time of 3 months stipulated by the trial Court, has paid the amount of compensation and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has been compensated, proceeded to release the respondent on probation.

¶20

Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, the discretion exercised by the Lower Appellate Court cannot said to have without any basis. No ground for interference in the present revision petition is made out.

¶21

Dismissed.

¶22

( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE

¶23

August 07, 2009 pj

Angrej Singh v. Kashmiri Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Angrej Singh v. Kashmiri Lal

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

Manjeet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gurinder Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Darshan Singh Vs State of Pb. and Ors.

Amit Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Jaswinder Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Mohomad Ali and Ors. Vs State of Punjab