Punjab Home

High Court Reduces Sentence in Cheque-Dishonour Case, Upholds Conviction and Compensation

Copy LinkShareSave

A single-judge bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj heard a criminal revision petition challenging conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and allowed an accompanying application condoning a delay of 39 days in filing the revision.

The Court upheld the conviction but moderated the sentence on grounds of proportionality, delay in prosecution and the period already undergone in custody. The judge noted the object of sentencing and stressed a reformative approach where appropriate, observing that "The fundamental purpose of imposition of sentence is based upon making an accused realize the consequences of the crime committed by him and the creation of the dent in the life of the victims and also the social fabric." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: Taking into consideration the facts noticed above that as against the sentence of 06 months, the petitioner has already undergone sentence of 04 months and 15 days, moreover, the complaint had been instituted in 2018 and a period of 7 years has passed since then, I deem it appropriate to partly allow the petition. While maintaining the judgment of conviction, the order of sentence so passed is modified. The sentence awarded by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kaithal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 vide order dated 10.02.2023 and upheld by Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide judgment dated 24.09.2025, is modified to the period already undergone. The petitioner be released from custody, if not required in any other case. The sentence of compensation shall remain intact. The Court further remarked that "interest of justice would warrant a reformative approach in precedence to a punitive or retributive approach."

Background

The complaint was lodged by Dharamender Walia, who said he operated a tour-and-travel and second-hand vehicle business and advanced Rs.1,80,000 to the accused for purchase of a vehicle in September 2017. The accused reportedly made part-payment and later issued cheque No. 454385 dated 08.02.2018 for Rs.1,20,000, which was returned unpaid on presentation with the remark "Funds Insufficient." The complainant issued a legal notice dated 05.03.2018 and filed the complaint on 09.04.2018. Preliminary evidence led to summons under Section 138 NI Act; the trial court convicted the accused on 10.02.2023 and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for six months and directed payment of Rs.1,80,000 as compensation. The accused appealed; the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal dismissed the appeal on 24.09.2025.

The accused contended that the cheque had been given as security (allegedly supported by an affidavit dated 01.07.2014) and was misused by the complainant; he maintained that no legally enforceable liability subsisted and that he was not properly served with notice. The appellate court rejected these contentions on the evidence. On revision, counsel urged leniency, noting that the petitioner had already undergone actual custody of four months and fifteen days, faced prolonged litigation since 2017 and had no other criminal cases.

The High Court reviewed sentencing principles, referenced international authorities and classical doctrine on penal parsimony, and emphasised that sentencing must balance proportionality, societal impact and possibilities of reform. Applying those principles to the facts and the considerable delay since institution of the complaint, the Court partly allowed the petition by modifying the sentence to the period already undergone while maintaining the conviction and the compensation order. The petitioner was directed to be released from custody if not required in any other case. The revision was otherwise dismissed.

Case Details: Case No.: CRR-352-2026 (O&M) Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana and another Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gagandeep Sanwal, Advocate for the petitioner(s) For the Respondent(s): Ms. Chhavi Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Haryana