The court modified the sentence from one year to the period already undergone, emphasizing the importance of proportionality and individual circumstances in sentencing.

Judgment

Mr. Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 03.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.12.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda vide which the petitioner has been held guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and awarded rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year and to pay compensation to the complainant bank to the tune of Rs. 77,800/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.

2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is body corporate under the banking companies Act 40 of 1980 having its head office at Bathinda and branch office among other places at Bathinda. The complainant was officer of the complainant bank and was also well conversant with the facts of the present case and was also competent and authorized to carry on all legal proceedings of the present case being the principal officer. It is averred that accused/petitioner took a loan from the complainant bank to the tune of Rs.2,20,000/- for purchase of product TATA ACE Magic bearing Registration No.PB-03U-2589 vide contract agreement No. JH004006H dated 30.06.2009 and agreed to pay a sum of Rs.82,775/- as interest charges on the said amount and agreed to pay the total amount of Rs.03,02,775/- to the complainant bank in monthly installments. The accused did not repay the loan amount regularly rather his account became irregular and a sum of Rs.2,82,000/- was still due and outstanding against the accused. The accused/petitioner in discharge of his partial lawful liability issued cheque No.857241 dated 10.06.2014 of Rs.77,800/- in favour of the complainant bank out of his account maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Court Complex, Bathinda with the assurance that the same shall be hounored as and when presented for encashment. It is further averred that said cheque was presented for encashment but the same was returned dishonoured with remarks ‘Funds Insufficient’ vide memo dated 11.06.2014 by the banker of the accused to the banker of complainant. Thereafter, complainant got issued a legal notice dated 30.06.2014 upon the accused through counsel intimating the accused about the dishonour of said cheque and calling upon the accused to make the payment of the said dishonoured cheque amount to the complainant within the period of 15 days from, the date of receipt of the notice but complainant failed to make the payment of the cheque in question.

3. In order to prove its case, the complainant was examined and he reiterated the contents of the complaint as well as evidence of complainant. Statements of the accused/petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which all the incriminating evidence was put to him to which he pleaded false implication and claimed innocence.

4. After hearing arguments of both the sides and perusing the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as stated above.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 03.12.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda which stood upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda on merits and restrict his prayer for modification of the order of sentence dated 03.12.2018 on quantum of sentence to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioner, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is suffering agony of protracted trial from 2014. It is also contended that petitioner has not been involved in any other criminal case during the course of trial or post conviction.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer of the petitioner for modification of the order of sentence to that of already undergone on the ground that the learned trial Court has passed a