Punjab-Haryana High Court
Yadwinder Singh vs Sunil Gumber on 9 December, 2013
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
CRR-3844-2013 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR-3844-2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 9.12.2013
Yadwinder Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
Sunil Gumber
...Respondent
CRR-3845-2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 9.12.2013
Yadwinder Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
Sunil Gumber
...Respondent
CRR-3846-2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 9.12.2013
Yadwinder Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
Sunil Gumber
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr.PS Brar, Advocate for the petitioner
(in all the petitions)
****
Jitendra Chauhan, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of the abovementioned Shanker Gauri 2013.12.09 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRR-3844-2013 (O&M) 2 revision petitions, which have been filed against the judgment dated 23.10.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioner against the judgment /order dated 3.2.2012, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Muktsar Sahib, convicting the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing RI for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month.
2. On the oral request of learned counsel for the petitioner, State is ordered to be impleaded as respondent No.2.
3. Registry is directed to make the necessary addition in the memo of parties.
4. Notice of motion.
5. At the asking of the Court, Mr.Mehardeep Singh, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Copy of the paper book has been handed over to the learned State counsel in the Court.
6. At his stage, Mr.Raman Goklaney, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1 and accepts notice.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset states that he does not want to challenge the judgment of the conviction on merits. The petitioner is young man of 35 years of age and not a previous convict. He is the only bread earner of the family. He is Shanker Gauri 2013.12.09 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRR-3844-2013 (O&M) 3 having two children. He further submits that the petitioner has paid the entire amount amount, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence. The petitioner has already undergone for a period of one months.
8. Heard and perused.
9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1
-complainant acknowledges the factum of payment. He further states that he has no objection, if the prayer made by the petitioner is allowed.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 645 titled as "R. Soundarajan V. Seed Inspector, Coimbatore and another" observed as under:-
"26. We have carefully perused the entire evidence and documents on record and heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the State, in our considered view, the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The appellants were released by this Court during the pendency of these appeals and they are now not required to surrender. The fine as imposed by the trial Court, if not already paid, would be Shanker Gauri 2013.12.09 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRR-3844-2013 (O&M) 4 paid within four weeks from the date of this judgment"
11. In another case titled as "Umrao Singh V. State of Haryana", 1981 AIR (SC) 1723, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"After hearing counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that this is a case falling under the proviso of Section 16(1)(a)(i) and therefore, for adequate and special reasons, the sentence lower than the minimum prescribed could be awarded. The High Court itself felt bound to award the minimum sentence but on merits was satisfied that if the legal position warranted the appellant could be given lesser sentence. We are in agreement with the view of the High Court. The appellant/petitioner is aged about 70 and suffering from asthama illness and has a clean past record. Besides, the percentage of deficiency that was noticed in the milk sold by him was 0.4% in the fat contents.
2. Having regard to these facts, the expression of the view of the High Court was justified. We accordingly reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone. The sentence, of fine is maintained and we are informed that he has already paid the fine. Since he is already on bail, he should be released forthwith. Shanker Gauri 2013.12.09 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRR-3844-2013 (O&M) 5
3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly"
12. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner will meet the ends of justice. However, the same shall be subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- with the Member Secretary, Punjab State Legal Service Authority, Punjab, in each case.
13. Consequently, the conviction of the petitioner, as mentioned above, is maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner, in all cases.
14. The revision petitions stand partly allowed accordingly.
9.12.2013 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
gsv JUDGE
Shanker Gauri
2013.12.09 16:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh