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: -

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 said cheque was returned unpaid with the remark, 'Funds Insufficient'. Subsequently, this was brought to the notice of the petitioner and a legal notice dated 06.08.2014 was sent to the petitioner through registered post. The petitioner failed to pay the amount. Respondent no. 2 then filed a complaint for proceeding against the petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act.

3. Upon presentation of the complaint in the trial Court, the petitioner was summoned vide order dated 27.08.2014. Once the presence of the petitioner was secured, notice of accusation under Section 138 of the NI Act was served upon the petitioner to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Respondent no. 2 appeared as the sole witness and tendered various documents as evidence to substantiate her complaint. Subsequently, the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded wherein the petitioner pleaded false implication, and examined one witness in his defence Thereafter, numerous opportunities were granted to the petitioner to lead and conclude defence evidence, but the petitioner failed to do so. As a result, the defence evidence of the petitioner was closed by the Court's order.

4. After examining all the material on record, the petitioner was convicted by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 17.05.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 25.08.2023.

CONTENTIONS

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 17.05.2017 on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order of quantum of sentence to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioner as the petitioner has already undergone a period of 5 months and 08 days in custody.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner has reformed and intend to live his life as a law-abiding citizen.

7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner as the learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record, which has been upheld by the learned Lower Appellate Court, and as such, he does not deserve any leniency.

OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book with their able assistance.

9. In Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257, a three Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that awarding of sentence is not a mere formality in criminal cases. When a minimum and maximum term is prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of sentence, a discretionary element is vested in the Court. Background of each case, w