Revision petition challenging conviction under Section 138 NI Act. Court dismissed challenge to conviction but reduced sentence to period already undergone.
Conviction maintained; sentence reduced to period already undergone.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Criminal Revision No.1302 of 2004
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Rev. No.1302 of 2004 Date of Decision: September 10, 2010
Narinder Kumar Sablok
...........Petitioner
Versus
Mrs. Ashnir Ahuja and another
..........Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. None for respondent No.1 Mr.Satyaveer Singh Yadav, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana **
Sabina, J.
Petitioner-Narinder Kumar was convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (`the Act' for short) by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala Cantt. in a complaint filed by complainant-Ashnir Ahuja-respondent No.1 vide judgment dated 12.5.2003. Vide order dated 21.5.2003, accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 138 of the Act and to pay Rs.1,25,000/- as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Aggrieved by the same, petitioner
2
Criminal Revision No.1302 of 2004
preferred the appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala vide judgment dated 5.6.2004. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.
The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, are as under:-
“The appellant had taken a loan of Rs. 1,25,000/- from the respondent No.1 and promised to return the same alongwith interest. The appellant issued a cheque bearing no. 037553 dated 6.10.92 for Rs. 1,25,000/- in favour of the respondent No.1 drawn on Central Bank of India, Ambala Cantt. The respondent No. 1 presented the said cheque to her banker State Bank of India, Sadar Bazar, Amabla Cantt. for realization but the said cheque was received by the respondent no.1 on 14.10.92 on the ground that the payment had been stopped by the appellant. The respondent no.1 made enquiries from Central Bank of India, Ambala Cantt and it was found that there were no sufficient amount in the account of the appellant to clear the said cheque. The appellant was an employee of Central bank of India and was posted in the regional office and for that reason he exercised influence in the bank and got issued the memo regarding stopping of payment by him. On receipt of information from the bank, the respondent no.1 issued a notice dated 19.10.92 through her counsel requesting the appellant to make the payment of the said cheque within fifteen days from the receipt of the notice. Despite receiving the notice, the appellant failed to make the payment. Despite receiving the notice, the appellant failed to make the
3
Criminal Revision No.1302 of 2004
payment. The respondent no.1 finding no other alternative, instituted the complaint under Section 138 of the Act on 23.11.92.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to already undergone by him. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is facing the criminal proceedings since the year 1992 and has already undergone about 4½ months of actual sentence. Petitioner has been involved in number of cases by the complainant and in some cases petitioner was tried for an offence under Section 420 IPC but he has since been acquitted in those cases. Petitioner and the complainant were running a partnership firm and had suffered losses. The present litigation was an outcome of the said fact.
Keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a fit case where the sentence qua imprisonment is liable to be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner.
Hence, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act is maintained. However, the sentence qua the imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone by him.
Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(Sabina) Judge
September 10, 2010 arya
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the sentence of rigorous imprisonment should be reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Narinder Kumar Sablok
Mrs. Ashnir Ahuja
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
