Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Kuldeep Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)
1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 25.08.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib vide which judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.05.2017 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malout in complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act') was upheld. The petitioner was sentenced as under: -
Offence | Sentence |
Section 138 NI Act | Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 2000/, in default of which further rigorous imprisonment of 7 days. |
Section 357 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation. |
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from respondent no. 2-complainant and in order to discharge this debt, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing no. 078727 dated 23.07.2014, amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn upon Punjab and Sindh Bank, Branch Malout, in favour of respondent no. 2. Accordingly, respondent no. 2 deposited the above said cheque with her bank for encashment of the same. However, vide memo dated 25.07.2014, the above sai
Sentencing under Section 138 of the NI Act must balance retribution and reformation, allowing modification based on the accused's conduct and time served.
The court modified the sentence from one year to the period already undergone, emphasizing the importance of proportionality and individual circumstances in sentencing.
The court has the discretion to alter the sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act based on the circumstances and payment made by the accused.
A conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act can be upheld if supported by sufficient evidence, and sentences can be modified based on the financial circumstances of the accused.
The court affirmed that under Section 138, sentencing discretion allows for adjustments based on the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the accused.
Modification of sentence in dishonour of cheque cases is warranted when the original penalty is deemed excessive given the offence's nature.
The court confirms the conviction under the NI Act but allows time for the petitioner to comply with the sentence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
