Disposed¶24

Daljit Singh v. Prabhninder Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Feb 2026CRR/2064/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Daljit Singh v. Prabhninder Singh; CRR-2064-2024; High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh; Anoop Chitkara, J.; decided 26.02.2026; 138 of NI Act; cheque dishonour complaint NACT/261/2018; JMIC Faridkot conviction 02.03.2019; appeal CRA-58-2019 before Additional Sessions Judge Faridkot decided 25.09.2024; revision disposed of without arguing merits; conviction affirmed; sentence reduced to period already undergone; custody certificate 07 months and 18 days; first offender affidavit; fine Rs.3,90,000/- with default RI 01 month 15 days; sentence reduction on humanitarian/mitigating grounds.

What did the court decide?

Conviction affirmed; total sentence reduced to the period already undergone (07 months and 18 days per custody certificate dated 25.02.2026); fine of Rs.3,90,000/- remains payable, failing which further RI of 01 month and 15 days.

Daljit Singh Vs Prabhninder Singh — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether, without arguing the revision petition on merits, the petitioner's conviction could stand affirmed while his sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.

¶16

Court's answer

Ends of justice would be met if the order of conviction is affirmed and the sentence is reduced to 06 months' RI, with further RI of 01 month and 15 days in default of payment of the fine of Rs.3,90,000/-; since the petitioner had already undergone 07 months and 18 days, the sentence stands reduced to the period already undergone.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

On these observations the petition stands disposed of, the petitioner's total sentence standing reduced to the period already undergone by him, and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRR-2064-2024, High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh (Anoop Chitkara, J.; decision 26.02.2026): Daljit Singh sought setting aside of his conviction under penal provision 138 of NI Act (cheque case NACT/261/2018; JMIC Faridkot judgment/order dated 02.03.2019 imposing RI 01 year plus fine of Rs.3,90,000/-, i.e., the cheque amount), affirmed and modified by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot in CRA-58-2019 (decided 25.09.2024). Without arguing merits, petitioner's counsel prayed for reduction of sentence to time already undergone, supported by an affidavit describing the petitioner as a first offender, uneducated, unemployed and lacking capacity to deposit the fine; respondent's counsel opposed. On a custody certificate showing 07 months and 18 days already undergone, the Court affirmed the order of conviction, reduced the sentence to 06 months' RI with default RI of 01 month and 15 days for non-payment of the Rs.3,90,000/- fine, and since time served exceeded that term, reduced the total sentence to the period already undergone; the petition and pending applications were disposed of. Speaking/reasoned: Yes; reportable: No.

¶1

CRR-2064-2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

205

¶4

CRR-2064-2024 Date of Decision: 26.02.2026

Daljit Singh

......Petitioner

Versus

Prabhninder Singh

......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Bokolia, Advocate for the respondent.

¶11

¶12

ANOOP CHITKARA J.

¶13

Criminal Case before trial	NACT/261/2018 PBFD030005652018
Court	Decided on: 02.03.2019
Criminal Appeal	CIS No. CRA-58-2019
before Appellate Court	CNR No. PBFD01-000911-2019 Decided on: 25.09.2024

¶14

Convict’s name	Penal provision	Sentence
Daljit Singh	138 of NI Act	RI for 01 year with fine of
		Rs.3,90,000/- i.e. cheque
		amount

¶15

Seeking setting aside of impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.03.2019 passed by JMIC, Faridkot convicting the petitioner and affirmed and modified by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, the petitioner had come up before this Court by filing the present revision petition.

¶16

At the outset, counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be contended and satisfied if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner in the complaint captioned above and he does not want to argue the revision petition on merits. He has

¶17

¶18

JYOTI SHARMA 2026.03.09 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh

¶19

CRR-2064-2024

¶20

handed over an affidavit of the petitioner declaring the mitigating factors which is taken on record. As per the said affidavit, the petitioner is a first offender, he is uneducated and is unemployed and is not a financial capacity to deposit the fine amount.

¶21

Counsel for the respondent strongly opposes such prayer.

¶22

State counsel has handed over custody certificate of the petitioner dated 25.02.2026, as per which the appellant has already undergone a period of 07 months and 18 days.

¶23

Given the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and State counsel and after going through the record of the case, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the order of conviction is affirmed and sentence of the petitioner is reduced to 06 months. In default of payment of amount of fine i.e. Rs.3,90,000/-, petitioner shall further undergo RI for 01 month and 15 days. Since the petitioner has already undergone 07 months and 18 days, as such, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.

¶24

With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of and the total sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. All pending applications, if any also stand disposed of.

¶25

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

¶26

26.02.2026 Jyoti Sharma

¶27

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No .

¶28

¶29

JYOTI SHARMA 2026.03.09 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh

Daljit Singh v. Prabhninder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daljit Singh v. Prabhninder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Prime Automobile Pvt. Ltd. Th. Its Authorized Representative Mr. Sonu Sharma Vs Parshant Kumar Mishra

Praveen Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Naveen Kumar Vs M/S Amrit Malwa Capital Ltd.

Veena Kumari Vs Anil Kumar

Anil Kumar Atwal Alias Sonu Vs Ut Chandigarh and Others

Surinder Singh Vs Tirath Singh and Anr.