Disposed¶28

Rohtash v. State of Haryana and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Mar 2026CRR/698/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rohtash v. State of Haryana, CRR-698-2026 (O&M), Punjab & Haryana High Court, Anoop Chitkara J., 17.03.2026. Keywords: Section 138 NI Act conviction affirmed; sentence reduced to period already undergone (08 days of 03 months SI); compensation Rs.1,41,680/- cheque amount; No Due Certificate Fatehabad Distt. Primary Co-op. Agri & Rural Dev. Bank Ltd.; delay of 343 days condoned (CRM-11432-2026); trial NI-53-2016 SDJM Fatehabad 29.01.2024; appeal CRA-76-2024 Additional Sessions Judge Fatehabad 03.01.2025; release direction; non-reportable.

What did the court decide?

Conviction affirmed; sentence reduced to the period already undergone (08 days); petitioner directed to be released immediately if not required in any other case; all pending applications including suspension of sentence disposed of. ¶28

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the sentence of the petitioner (convicted under Section 138 NI Act, conviction affirmed in appeal) should be reduced to the period already undergone, given that counsel did not wish to argue the revision on merits and the entire cheque amount stands deposited (No Due Certificate, Annexure P-8).

¶25

Court's answer

Ends of justice would be met if the order of conviction is affirmed and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner, i.e. 08 days (as per custody certificate dated 17.03.2026) out of the substantive sentence of 03 months.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

Delay of 343 days in filing the revision petition is condoned and application CRM-11432-2026 is allowed.

¶16

Key takeaways

Petition disposed of: judgment of conviction affirmed, order of sentence modified and reduced to the period already undergone; petitioner to be released immediately if not required in any other case; all pending applications, including suspension of sentence, disposed of.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision (CRR-698-2026 O&M), High Court of Punjab & Haryana, decided 17.03.2026 by Anoop Chitkara J. Petitioner, convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by SDJM, Fatehabad (judgment dated 29.01.2024, SI for 03 months with compensation of Rs.1,41,680/-, i.e. the cheque amount) and affirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad (CRA-76-2024, decided 03.01.2025), filed the revision with a delay of 343 days, which was condoned (CRM-11432-2026 allowed). Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire cheque amount stood deposited, relying on a No Due Certificate (Annexure P-8) issued by The Fatehabad Distt. Primary Co-op. Agri & Rural Dev. Bank Ltd., and confined the prayer to reduction of sentence to the period already undergone, without arguing the revision on merits; State counsel opposed, handing over a custody certificate dated 17.03.2026 showing 08 days undergone out of the 03-month substantive sentence. The Court affirmed the conviction, modified the sentence by reducing it to the period already undergone (08 days), and directed immediate release if not required in any other case; all pending applications were disposed of. Marked speaking/reasoned: Yes; reportable: No.

¶1

CRR-698-2026 (O&M)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

107

¶4

CRR-698-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.03.2026

Rohtash

......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another ......Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. B.S. Beniwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Shiva Khurmi, D.A.G., Haryana. ***

¶11

ANOOP CHITKARA J.

¶12

Criminal Case before trial	NI-53-2016 under Section District Fatehabad	138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,
Court	HRFTB10017732016
	Decided on: 29.01.2024
Criminal Appeal before Appellate Court	CRA-76-2024 HRFT010009772024

¶13

Decided on: 03.01.2025

¶14

Convict’s name	Penal provision	Sentence
Rohtash	138 of N.I. Act	SI for 03	months with
		compensation	of
		Rs.1,41,680/- amount	i.e. cheque

¶15

CRM-11432-2026

¶16

For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 343 days in filing the present revision petition is condoned.

¶17

Application stands allowed.

¶18

Main case

¶19

Seeking setting aside of impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.01.2024 passed by SDJM, Fatehabad convicting the petitioner and affirmed by

¶20

¶21

JYOTI SHARMA 2026.03.18 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh

¶22

CRR-698-2026 (O&M)

¶23

Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, the petitioner had come up before this Court by filing the present revision petition.

¶24

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire cheque amount has been deposited and has referred to Annexure P-8 which is a No Due Certificate given by The Fatehabad Distt. Primary Co-op. Agri & Rural Dev. Bank Ltd. He submits that the document is genuine and is not forged.

¶25

Counsel for the petitioner further 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.

¶26

State counsel strongly opposes such prayer. State counsel has handed over custody certificate of the petitioner dated 17.03.2026, as per which the petitioner has already undergone a period of 08 days out of substantive sentence of 03 months.

¶27

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 the period already undergone by him i.e. 08 days.

¶28

With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of. Judgment of conviction is affirmed and order of sentence is modified and sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner. Petitioner be released in this case immediately if he is not required in any other case. All pending applications, including application for suspension of sentence, also stand disposed of.

¶29

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

¶30

17.03.2026 Jyoti Sharma

¶31

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No .

¶32

¶33

JYOTI SHARMA 2026.03.18 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh

Rohtash v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohtash v. State of Haryana and Another

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

Celestial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ratish Kumar & Ors.

Mayur Poultary Farm through Its Partner Vs Afi Agro Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director

Balkar Singh Vs the Ferozepur Primary Co-Op Development Bank Thr Assistant Manager

Ram Avtar Vs State of Haryana and Others

M/S Rama Sanitary Store Vs Subhash Jain and Another

Kikkar Singh Vs Sham Sunder Monga