264 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 30.01.2025 GAGANDEEP SINGH @ HAPPY ...PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 19.08.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide which, judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 14.07.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar in a complaint case filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’) have been upheld.

2. The petitioner was sentenced as under:

3. Briefly, the case of complainant is that petitioner/accused has taken a friendly loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from the respondent No.2/complainant and in discharge of his said legal debt and liability, the petitioner/accused issued one cheque bearing No.531807 dated 25.05.2015 for Rs.4,00,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Branch Meerankot Kalan, Amritsar, in favour of respondent No.2/complainant, with an assurance that the said cheque being good for payment would be duly honoured as and when presented. On the assurance given by the petitioner/accused, the respondent No.2/complainant presented the said cheque to the banker of the petitioner/accused through his banker i.e. Canara Bank, Branch Meerankot Kalan, Amritsar. However, the banker of the petitioner/accused returned the said cheque with remarks "Drawers Signature differ" vide memo dated 26.05.2015. Thereafter, respondent No.2/complainant served the petitioner/accused with legal notice dated 25.06.2015 through Registered A.D. post, but despite the service of legal notice, petitioner/accused has failed to make the payment to respondent No.2/complainant. Hence, the present complaint.

4. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced vide judgment and order of sentence dated 14.07.2017 passed by learned trial Court, which have also been upheld by learned lower Appellate Court vide judgment dated

19.08.2019.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been convicted by learned trial Court and sentenced to undergo a period of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years along with default mechanism. Learned counsel submits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 19.08.2019 on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioner. He further submits that this Court, vide order dated 09.09.2019, had directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.70,000/- in favour of respondent No.2/complainant, before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has no objection in case the amount deposited by him be released in favour of respondent No.2/complainant. He submits that the petitioner has undergone a total period of 24 days and he is not involved in any other case.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposes the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record, which has also been upheld by the learned lower Appellate Court and as such, he does not deserve any leniency.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

8. 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 prescr