Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2886 (RAJ)

Harpraminder Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2019-11-21

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2019
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 19.09.2019 passed by learned Session Judge, Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment dated 06.03.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge NI Act Cases No.2, Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby, the learned trial court convicted the present petitioner for offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and also ordered to pay a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- as compensation to the respondent No.2-complainant and in default to pay compensation, the petitioner shall undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act against the petitioner alleging therein that for the purpose of satisfying its debt towards the complainant-respondent No.2, the petitioner issued a cheque dated 14.02.2017 of Rs.1,50,000/-. On presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured by the Bank. The complainant served a legal notice dated 18.02.2017 upon the petitioner through his Advocate and demanded the amount of cheque but the petitioner did not pay any amount. 3. The learned court below took cognizance in the matter and ultimately framed charge for offence under Section 138 NI Act against the petitioner. The petitioner denied the charge and claimed for trial. During trial the complainant got himself examined and got exhibited certain documents. Thereafter statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. In defence no evidence, oral as well as documentary, was produced by the petitioner. 4. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide judgment and order dated 06.03.2019 convicted the accusedpetitioner for offence under Section 138 of NI Act. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 06.03.2019, passed by the learned trial court, an appeal was preferred before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 19.09.2019. Hence, this revision. 6. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 06.03.2019, passed by the learned trial court, an appeal was preferred before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 19.09.2019. Hence, this revision. 6. At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the accused petitioner is behind the bars since 05.01.2019 and out of total sentence of one year, the petitioner has served about 10 months and 15 days of sentence, therefore, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. Despite service, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2-complainant. 8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments passed by both the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioner. 10. It is not disputed that the accused petitioner was sentenced to a period of one year simple imprisonment, however, the petitioner has so far undergone a period of 10 months and 15 days in custody out of one year of total sentence, so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that he has remained behind the bars for about 10 months and 15 days now, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 138 of NI Act is reduced from one year to the period already undergone by the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under Section 138 of NI Act, the sentence awarded to him is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. So far as the compensation amount is concerned, the respondent No.2-complainant shall be free to initiate proceedings for recovery of the compensation amount before the trial court. The accused-petitioner is in custody and shall be released, if not required in any other case.