246 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 13.02.2025 SUKHJIT SINGH ...PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Himanshu Chauhan, Advocate for Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 02.05.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, vide which, judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 18.01.2011 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi, 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 borrowed an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- from respondent No.2/complainant and in discharge of his liability, the petitioner/accused issued one cheque bearing No.832584 dated 18.12.2008 for Rs.1,70,000/- drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala, in favour of respondent No.2/complainant, with an assurance that the said cheque would be encashed as and when presented. On the assurance given by the petitioner/accused, respondent No.2/complainant presented the said cheque to the banker of the petitioner/accused through his banker. However, the banker of the petitioner/accused returned the said cheque with remarks “Funds Insufficient” vide memo dated 30.03.2009. Thereafter, the complainant/respondent No.2 requested the accused/petitioner to make the payment but he kept on lingering the matter and did not pay any amount. After that, respondent No.2/complainant served the petitioner/accused with legal notice dated 01.04.2009 vide postal receipt dated 02.04.2009, 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 18.01.2011 passed by learned trial Court, which have also been upheld by learned lower Appellate Court vide judgment dated

02.05.2013.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been convicted by learned trial Court and sentenced to undergo a period of simple imprisonment for a period of one year along with default mechanism. Learned counsel submits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 02.05.2013 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. As per the custody certificate dated 22.07.2013, the petitioner has undergone a total period of 02 months and 18 days and he is not involved in any other case.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel 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 prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of sentence, a discretionary element is vested in the Court. Background of each case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence, manner in which, the offence is committed, age of the accused, should be considered while determining the qu