SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(P&H) 2079

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Shingara Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Yaseen Sethi, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.11.2023 whereby while allowing the application filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner seeking suspension of sentence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala ordered him to deposit 5% of the compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- i.e. equal to the amount of cheque, awarded by the learned trial Court.

2. In brief, facts of the case are that respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the NI Act) on the ground that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- from him and in order to discharge his legal liability, issued a cheque bearing No.735959 dated 20.02.2019 for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-. However, on presentation for encashment, the said cheque was dishonoured and returned with remarks 'funds insufficient'. The petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 19.10.2023 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years with a direction to pay compensation equal to the cheque amo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top