Partly allowed

Gulab Singh v. State of Haryana and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC20 May 2026CRR/684/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Conviction under Section 138 NI Act for a dishonoured cheque was upheld, but the High Court reduced the one-year sentence to time already undergone and enhanced compensation by Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 6,10,000, invoking proportionality of the cost of liberty.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to time already undergone; petitioner to be released if not held elsewhere; compensation enhanced by Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 6,10,000, to be released to complainant's bank account.

Gulab Singh Vs State of Haryana and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CRM-21853-2026 in/and

¶2

CRR-684-2026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-21853-2026 in/and CRR-684-2026

Gulab Singh

... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another … Respondents

¶9

JUDGEMENT	JUDGEMENT	OPERATIVE PART	UPLOADED ON
RESERVED ON	PRONOUNCED ON	PRONOUNCED OR FULL
13.05.2026	20.05.2026	FULL PRONOUNCED	20.05.2026

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶11

Present: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the convict/petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Ajay Chauhan, for the complainant (Respondent no. 2)

¶13

¶14

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶15

	TRIAL COURT
Name of the Complainant	Virender Chauhan
Name of the accused/ convict	Gulab Singh
Cheque Amount	Rs. 3,80,000/-
Complaint Case No.	NACT-551-2015 CNR No. 205600042372015 Decided on: 29/31.07.2024
Conviction under sections	138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
Sentence imposed	Simple Imprisonment for 01 year along with a compensation amount of Rs. 5,70,000/-

¶16

	SESSIONS COURT
Names of convict	Gulab Singh
Criminal Appeal No.	CRA-212-2024
CNR No.	HRPL010061522024
Date of decision	27.01.2026

¶17

Challenging the above-mentioned judgment passed by the trial Court, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which was affirmed by the Sessions Court as mentioned above, the convict has come up before this Court by filing the present criminal revision petition.

¶18

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not in a financial capacity

¶19

ANJU RANI 2026.05.20 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶20

¶21

CRM-21853-2026 in/and CRR-684-2026

¶22

to pay the amount, and he would confine his submissions for reduction of sentence to that which the convict has already undergone.

¶23

Ld. Counsel for respondent No.2 opposes the reduction of the sentence and submits that if this Court reduces the sentence to already undergone, then the amount of compensation should be increased by Rs. 50,000/-.

¶24

To this, Counsel for the petitioner submits that if the amount of compensation is to be increased, then it should be increased by Rs. 40,000/-.

¶25

As per the judgment passed by the trial Court, the cheque amount was Rs. 3,70,000/-

¶26

As per the judgment passed by the trial Court, the sentence, fine, and compensation amount awarded in favor of the complainant and against the accused petitioner are as follows:

¶27

SENTENCE AWARDED Sentence of	BY THE TRIAL COURT Compensation Amount/	Default imprisonment in
Imprisonment	Fine Amount	case of non-payment of compensation/fine
SI for 01 year	Rs. 5,70,000/-	NIL

¶28

In the appeal filed by the accused/convict, the conviction, sentence, and compensation were upheld.

¶29

As per the custody certificate dated 30.04.2026, in the present complaint, the petitioner has undergone custody of 03 months and 11 days.

¶30

The per-day imprisonment for the fine/compensation amount comes to:

¶31

PER-DAY IM	PRISONME	NT FOR FINE/C	OMPENSA	TION AMOUNT
A	B	C	D	E
FINE +	AMOUNT	AMOUNT	CUSTODY	FINE +
COMPENSATION AMOUNT	DEPOSITED	OUTSTANDING	AS OF DATE	COMPENSATION AMOUNT
IMPOSED				PROPORTIONATE TO PER DAY CUSTODY
		[A-B=C]		[C÷D=E]
Rs. 5,70,000/-	NIL	Rs. 5,70,000/-	114 days	Rs. 5000/-

¶32

The calculation set out above indicates that the convict compromised his liberty for the non-payment of money, which comes to a meager amount of Rs. 5000/- every day.

¶33

The fundamental principle that has emerged as a core doctrinal concern in criminal jurisprudence is the price a convict pays for the curtailment of their freedom due to incarceration for non-payment of fine/compensation amount. How many ounces of flesh does a convict have to pay every day for the inability to pay the money? It was for the Executive to have tabled legislation for the proportionate sentencing, and in its absence,

¶34

ANJU RANI 2026.05.20 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶35

¶36

CRM-21853-2026 in/and CRR-684-2026

¶37

the High Court, which is a primary guardian of an individual’s fundamental rights, cannot remain in the cocoon of a deep slumber. The seeds of proportionate sentencing have now sprouted, and the green shoots are visible in every jurisdiction. To give meaning to the concept of equality and the principle of parity as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the period of imprisonment a convict has to undergo for non-payment of fine and compensation must be equivalent to the money unpaid and consistent with that imposed on similarly placed convicts. Cost of liberty must be proportionate.

¶38

Given the cheque amount, compensation awarded, and the sentence already undergone, the ends of justice shall be met if the sentence is reduced to that already undergone by the convict.

¶39

The petition is partly allowed to the extent that although the conviction is maintained and upheld, the sentence of substantive imprisonment is reduced to what the petitioner has already undergone; and the compensation is enhanced by Rs. 40,000/-, from Rs. 5,70,000/to Rs. 6,10,000/-

¶40

The compensation amount hereinafter deposited, along with interest accrued on the deposits, if any, less taxes, if any, shall be released in favor of the complainant by transferring to the complainant’s bank account in which the complainant is the sole holder.

¶41

The petitioner who is in custody in the present case shall be released forthwith, provided the petitioner is not lodged in custody in any other case.

¶42

The Registry shall prepare release warrants either themselves or immediately send a communication to the concerned trial Court for the preparation of the release warrants. Consequently, CRM 21853 of 2026 has rendered infructuous and stands disposed of.

¶43

Petition is partly allowed to the extent mentioned above. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶44

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

¶45

20.05.2026 Anju Rani

¶46

Whether speaking/reasoned	YES
Whether reportable	YES

¶47

ANJU RANI 2026.05.20 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶48

Gulab Singh v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulab Singh v. State of Haryana and Another

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

Sukhwinder Singh Vs Gurmukh Singh

Harjit Singh Alias Jeeta and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Amar Nath Vs the Nawanshahr Central Cooperative Bank Limited and Another

Indusind Bank Ltd. Vs Satender Singh

Krishan Raj Alias Bittu Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Vikas Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Ut Chandigarh