Darshan Singh vs The Bathinda Primary Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd

Learned counsel for the applicant makes a statement at Bar that he may be permitted to withdraw the present application.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

As per the case set up by the respondent, the petitioner took a dairy loan from it and in discharge of his legal liability, issued the cheque in question for Rs.2,42,700/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Two Thousand and Seven Hundred Only) in favour of the respondent with an assurance that it will be honoured as and when it is presented for encashment. However, when the respondent presented it before the concerned bank, it was dishonoured with the remarks "Account closed". The respondent issued a notice dated 12.12.2011 to the petitioner but the petitioner did not pay the amount mandated by the said notice. The respondent accordingly filed the complaint in question under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. On his trial, the petitioner confessed his guilt. Through an order dated 20.09.2016, he was accordingly sentenced to undergo SI for 02 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to further undergo imprisonment for 01 month. Aggrieved thereagainst, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Court concerned. It was partly allowed through the impugned judgment dated 17.03.2023. His sentence of imprisonment was reduced to 06 months RI by maintaining the sentence of imposed fine which stood already deposited by the petitioner. Aggrieved of the said judgment, the petitioner is before this Court in revision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, states that since the petitioner has already paid Rs.2,42,700/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Two Thousand and Seven Hundred Only) to the respondent and the respondent has accepted the said amount also coupled with the fact that the petitioner has undergone a custody period of about one month in the matter in question, leniency may be shown to the petitioner in respect of imposition of sentence.

To his such argument, learned counsel for the respondent states that the petitioner has paid the above-stated amount to the respondent and the respondent has received the same.

After hearing them and considering the totality of the facts/circumstances of the matter in question especially the fact that the petitioner has repaid the above-stated amount and also the fact that he has undergone a custody period of about one month in the matter in question coupled with the fact that he had confessed his guilt before the Magistrate concerned, I deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence awarded to the petitioner to the period already undergone by him in the complaint in question. However, the sentence of the imposed fine is maintained. The petition in question is accordingly partly allowed in the above-stated terms. The petitioner, since he is in custody, is ordered to be set forth at liberty at once.

Interim application(s), if any, is/are also disposed of.