IMPORTANT POINT
In cases of cheque dishonour payment should be insisted and not jail sentence.

H.R. Panwar J.—The instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Criminal Procedure Code directed against the judgment and order dated 4.8.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions judge (Fast Track) Parbatsar (for short “the appellate court”) whereby the appeal filed by the petition against the judgment and order dated 30.4.2009 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Makrana (for short “the trial Court”) in Criminal Complaint Case no. 48 of 2007, was dismissed and conviction and sentenced passed by the trial court was affirmed. The trial court vide judgment and order impugned dated 30.4.2009 convicted the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the Act of 1881”) and sentence him to undergo one month’s simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. At the outset learned counsel for thc petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to challenge his conviction for the offence under Sec. 138 of the Act of 1881 and confines his challenge only to the quantum of sentence. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already undergone the imprisonment of 24 days out of one month sentence awarded to him. It is also submitted that the petitioner has already deposited fine amount Rs. 25,000/- with the Trial Court. Learned counsel has shown the receipt issued by the Trial Court being Book No. 37311 and Receipt No. 000019 by which the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000 before the trial Court.

4. While suspending the sentence of the petitioner by order dated 26.8.2009 this court directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000 with the Trial Court, in pursuance thereof the amount has already been deposited.

5. From the record, it appears that the petitioner has already undergone substantial part of the sentence and since the amount of fine has already been deposited by the petitioner, therefore, in my view, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him.

6. Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging his conviction for the offence Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is dismissal and while maintaining thc conviction of the Petitioner and the sentence of fine, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He needs not to surrender. His bails bonds are discharged.

Revision Petition dismissed.

*********