Govind Lal v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 23.3.2012 passed by the learned M.M., Southeast Saket Courts, Delhi and the order dated 1.10.2012 passed by the learned District Judge, Saket, New Delhi. ^ Mr. Sudhir Kumar counsel for respondent no.2 enters appearance. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not wish to contest the orders passed by the courts below on merits and confine his arguments only to assail the quantum of sentence. Counsel also submits that the petitioner had deposited the amount of Rs. 1.53 lacs before the 2013:DHC:8468 Appellate court in compliance of the directions given by the Appellate Court in Crl. A. No.87/2012 filed by the petitioner. Counsel fiirther submits that the petitioner has also deposited further amount of Rs.1 lac with this court in com^pliance of the order dated 17.10.2012. Counsel also submits that the petitioner is the only bread earner in his family and he has to support his wife and four children. Counsel submits that the petitioner has clean antecedents and he has no track record ofcommitting any other offence. Counsel also submits that the petitioner remained in the custody for a period of 18 days after the appellate court upheld the order passed by the learned M.M. on conviction as well as sentence. Based on these submissions, counsel prays before this court to take a lenient view and reduce the period of sentence as already undergone by the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent no.2 on the other hand submits that the respondent no.2 has not received any amount till date. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Vide order dated 23.3.2012 passed by the learned M.M. the present petitioner was held guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo a simple iinprisonment for a period of six months apart from imposition offine of Rs. 2.50 lacs. The learned M.M. further directed that the entire fine amount shall be paid by the petitioner as compensation to the complainant and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall be liable to undergo a simple imprisonment for one month in addition to the substantive imprisonment. The said orders of conviction as well as sentence was challenged by the petitioner in appeal and vide order dated 1.10.2012, the learned Appellate court upheld the orders of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned M.M. The learned Appellate court also observed that there is no scope for any leniency in the matter ofpunishment. In the present revision petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 23.3.2013 passed by the learned M.M. and the order dated 1.10.2012 passed by the Appellate court. While addressing arguments, counsel for the petitioner has taken a stand that the petitioner is not challenging the order of conviction as passed by the learned M.M. and the order passed by the Appellate court confirming the said order of conviction but is confming his arguments on the quantum of sentence only. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for showing leniency to the petitioner while deciding quantum of sentence as he is father of four childien and the only bread eamer in his family. Counsel has also submitted that the antecedents of the petitioner are clean as he is not involved in any other offence exceptthe present one. Counsel has also submitted that the petitioner has already deposited the entire fine amount as imposed by the leamed trial court. Counsel also submittedthat the petitioner remained in judicial custody for a period of 18 days. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and considering the fact that the petitioner is the only bread eamer in his family comprising of his wife and four children and there is none else to support his family and also on account of the fact that the petitioner has already deposited the amount of Rs.2.53 lacs, I arti of the view that the sentence already undergone by the petitioner should be treated as a sentence for the offence under Section 138 ofthe Negotiable Instruments Act. The order of sentence passed by the leamed M.M. and upheld by the sessions court is thus reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by the petitioner. The respondent no.2 shall now be entitled to seek release of the amount of Rs. 1.53 lacs which the petitioner has deposited with the Appellate court and the amount of Rs.1 lac which has been deposited by the petitioner with this court. The petitioner is already onbail. His bail bond shall stand dischai-ged. It is ordered accordingly. KAILASH GAMBHIR, J FEBRUARY 07, 2013

JUDGMENT