PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
K.C.Gupta, J.
Sat Pal
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Revision No. 1452 of 2001,
Decided On : DECEMBER 6, 2001
Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonoured Cheque - The court modified the sentence of the petitioner to the period already undergone, considering the payment made and the leniency requested by the petitioner's counsel.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner issued a cheque that was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Despite a legal notice, the petitioner failed to make payment, leading to a complaint being filed.
Finding of the Court:
The court modified the sentence of the petitioner to the period already undergone, considering the payment made and the leniency requested by the petitioner's counsel.
Issues: Dishonour of cheque, failure to make payment, modification of sentence
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the payment made by the petitioner, his time in custody, and the leniency requested by his counsel in modifying the sentence.
Final Decision: The revision petition is dismissed with the modification of the sentence to the period already undergone.
K.C.Gupta, J.
1. This revision petition is filed by Sat Pal son of Shankar Dass against the judgment dated 10.9.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby his appeal was dismissed and the judgment and order dated 16.8.2000, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, vide which the petitioner was found guilty and was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 4000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for one month was upheld.
2. Briefly stated, the facts are that petitioner issued cheque No. A/10-459241 dated 8.11.1997 from his saving A/c No. 16858 L.F. 77 payable at State Bank of India, Gurdaspur, for a sum of Rs. 33,300/- in favour of complainant Surjit Kaur. The said cheque was presented for encashment by Smt. Surjit Kaur through her Bankers, but the same was dishonoured vide endorsement dated 6.3.1998 on account of `insufficient funds.
3. Thereafter, Smt. Surjit Kaur issued a legal notice to the petitioner on 12.3.1998 which was duly served and acknowledged by him but inspite of that notice, the petitioner failed to make payment of the amount and as such, a complaint was filed.
4. Smt. Surjit Kaur complainant had appeared in this Court through her counsel Shri Ajay Kumar Sapehia, Advocate, and had admitted that the complainant had received whole of the amount from Sat Pal petitioner on 19.9.2001 and she was not interested to pursue the complaint any further. She had also filed an affidavit dated 18.9.2001 which is on the file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had paid the amount of fine and had also remained in custody for 18 days after his conviction and further had also paid whole of the amount and as such, a lenient view be taken against him. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone. With this modification in the sentence, this revision petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.