Daya Kishan Vs the Kaithal District Primary Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Kaithal Branc

	TRIAL COURT
Name of the Complainant	The Kaithal District Primary Cooperative Agri- cultural and Rural Development Bank Limited Kaithal through its Branch Manager
Name of the accused/ convict	Daya Kishan
Cheque Amount	Rs. 8,80,400/-
Complaint Case No.	CIS No.NI Act 1013 of 2016 Criminal complaint No.177 of 2016 CNR No.HRKH03-007839-2016 Date of decision: 18.04.2019
Conviction under sections	138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
Sentence imposed	Simple Imprisonment for 06 months along with a compensation amount of Rs. 8,80,400/-

¶15

	SESSIONS COURT
Names of convict	Daya Kishan
Criminal Appeal No.	CIS Case No.CRA/214/2019
CNR No.	HRKH01-003231-2019
Date of decision	20.03.2026

¶16

Challenging the above captioned 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

¶17

ANJU RANI 2026.05.29 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

1

2

CRR-942-2026

come up before this Court by filing the present criminal revision petition.

¶22

By order dated 16.04.2026, the execution of the sentence of imprisonment was suspended and the said order is continuing till date, and as per the petitioner’s counsel, the convict is not in custody in this case.

¶23

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has brought a demand draft of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the respondent and the same is handed over to Mr. Devender Singh, authorized person of the respondent-Bank, through their counsel. Petitioner’s counsel further submits that now total amount paid by the petitioner is Rs.6,00,000/- and petitioner is not in a financial capacity to pay more amount, and he would confine his submissions for reduction of sentence to that which the convict has already undergone.

¶24

Ld. Counsel for the respondent opposes the reduction of the sentence and submits that if this Court reduces the sentence to the already undergone, then the amount of compensation should be increased.

¶25

To this, counsel for the petitioner submits that amount should not be increased.

¶26

As per the judgment passed by the trial Court, the cheque amount was Rs.8,80,400/ -

¶27

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:

¶28

SENTENCE AWARDED	BY THE TRIAL COURT
Sentence of	Compensation Amount/	Default imprisonment in
Imprisonment	Fine Amount	case of non-payment of compensation/fine
SI for 06 months	Rs.8,80,400/-	NIL

¶29

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

¶30

As per the custody certificate dated 11.05.2026 in the present complaint, the petitioner has undergone custody of 28 days.

¶31

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

¶32

PER-DAY I A	MPRISONME B	NT FOR FINE/C C	OMPENSA D	TION AMOUNT E
FINE + COMPENSATION AMOUNT IMPOSED	AMOUNT DEPOSITED	AMOUNT OUTSTANDING	CUSTODY AS OF DATE	FINE + COMPENSATION AMOUNT PROPORTIONATE TO PER DAY CUSTODY
		[A-B=C]		[C÷D=E]
Rs.8,80,400/-	Rs. 6,00,000/-	Rs. 2,80,400/-	28 days	Rs.10,014/- approximately

¶33

ANJU RANI 2026.05.29 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

2

3

CRR-942-2026

The above calculation indicates that the convict compromised his liberty for the nonpayment of money, which comes to a meager amount of Rs. 10,014/- every day.

¶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 the already undergone.

¶39

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.

¶40

The personal bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged.

¶41

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. Order dated 16.04.2026 is made absolute. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶42

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

¶43

27.05.2026 Anju rani

¶44

Whether speaking/reasoned	YES
Whether reportable	NO

¶45

ANJU RANI 2026.05.29 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶46

3

Daya Kishan v. the Kaithal District Primary Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Kaithal Branc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daya Kishan v. the Kaithal District Primary Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Kaithal Branc

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

Sachin Vs State of Haryana

Hargobind Bansal Alias Raksh Bansal Vs State of Punjab and Others

Davinder Singh Alias Baba Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Milakh Raj Vs Som Nath and Anr.

Gurdip Singh Vs Amit Kumar Mittal and Anr.

Randhir Singh Vs Vakil Ram