- (1.) J. C. S. Rawat ,j. This criminal revision has been di rected against the judgment and order passed by the learned llnd Addl. Civil Judge (JD)/judicial Magistrate Roorkee, Distt Haridwar dated 27-03-2001 in Criminal Complaint Case No. 12 of 2000, Afzal Ahmed Vs. Mohd. Fizan u/s 138 of the N. I. Act with fine of Rs. 1,200/- and in default of payment of fine an imprisonment for two months.
(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this revision are that a complaint was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate u/s 138 of the N. I. Act alleging therein that the respondent No. 1 had given a cheque of Rs. 30,000/- to the revisionist and the said cheque was dishonoured. Statutory notice was given but inspite of the notice, the amount was not paid hence complaint was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate. The learned Magistrate took the cognizance and thereafter proceeded with the trial. After the conclusion of the trial, the learned Magistrate held that the prosecution had established the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and he convicted the accused u/s 138 of the N. I. Act and also awarded the sentence as indicated above. Feeling aggrieved by the said or der, the present revision petition had been preferred before this court. Heard Sri S. P. S. Panwar Sr. Ad vocate for the revisionist and Sri Sohail Ahmed Siddique, learned A. G. A. for the State. Inspite of the notice respond ent No. 1 has not appeared.
(3.) IT was contended on behalf of the revisionist that considering the amount of the cheque and the circum stances of the case, the punishment awarded to Rs. 1,200/- was too meager and it was further contended that the learned Magistrate should have awarded the punishment in proportion to the tune of the gravity of the offence. IT was further contended that Section 138 of the N. I. Act provides the pun ishment to the extent of 2 years rigor ous imprisonment and the fine may ex tent to twice the amount of cheque and both. The learned A. G. A. could not support the order of the learned Magistrate. IT was also contended on behalf of the State that the learned Magistrate had given undue sympathy in the matter in favour of the respondent and it had caused the miscarriage of justice. IT is well settled principal of law that the imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social order in many cases may be in reality a futile exercise. The social impact of crime particularly in the economic nature have great impact on the social order and public interest cannot be lost sight of and per se requires exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic a view which is against the social interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by a string of deterrence inbui9lt in the sentencing system and criminal jurisprudence. IT is settled principle of law that courts should award the sentence which reflect the need of society. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and it could create a serious threats to the society. IT is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed of committed. The criminal law adheres in general to the principle of proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct. The law ordinarily allows some significant discretion to the judge or the court in arriving at a sentence but that sentence but that sentence should be awarded judiciously and not arbitrarily, while awarding the sentence the court should see the interests of complainant as well as the accused. The should be a balance in between the offence and the circumstances which has been pleaded by the accused. There should be no dis-balance while awarding the sentence. The law regulates the social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands security of person and property of the people is an essential function of the State. IT can be achieved through instrumentality of the criminal law. Protection of the society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. After giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of the each case for deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence, the aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstance in which the offence had been committed are to delicately balanced on the basis of really relevant circumstance in a dispassionate manner by the court. In the light of the above backdrop, I would like to analyze the facts of this case. The total amount covered by the cheque involved in this case is 30, 000/ -. There is no case that the said amount had been paid either during the pendency of the case and thereafter. Thus it is clear that the amount covered by the cheque remain unpaid till today. The learned magistrate should have taken into account this aspect. The offence had been committed by not paying the amount of Rs. 30,000/- where the amount covered by the chaque remain unpaid during the trial which should be looked out by the trial Magistrate, i. e. , sentence for the offence u/s 138 N. I. Act should be such nature as to give proper effect of the object of the legislature. The very object of Section 138 N. I. Act would stand defeated, if the sentence of the nature passed by the trial Magistrate is sustained. Particularly in case of 138 N. I. Act, the amount of the cheque involved and sentence of imprisonment and fine should commen surate with each other.;