The main legal point established in the judgment is the emphasis on the civil nature of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the encouragement of compounding at the initial stage.

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The instant criminal revision petition, is directed, against, the concurrently recorded findings, whereby, both the learned Courts below, convicted besides sentenced the accused/petitioner, for his committing an offence punishable under Section 138, of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that the complainant is a private limited company and deals in sale and trade construction material. The accused/petitioner herein requested the complainant to sell the material on credit basis. The accused purchased total material of Rs.3,61,838/- from the complainant against various bills/invoices on different dates, as detailed in the complaint, bills/invoices whereof, bear his signatures. On 30.05.2010, the accounts were settled and total amount of Rs.3,61,838/- was found due against the accused. The accused in order to discharge his liability issued two cheques No.001172 of 30.05.2010 amount to Rs.50000/- of the ICICI Bank, Solan and cheque No.001173 of 1.6.2010 amounting to Rs.3,11,838/-. The accused assured the complainant that the cheque will be encashed on presentation. However, the cheque bearing No.0011072 of 30.05.2010 amounting to Rs.50000/- on presentation stood returned to the complainant along with memo of 20.11.2010 with endorsement “insufficient funds'. It is submitted that the complainant intimated this fact to the accused, who requested the complainant that he was facing financial crunches in these days and requested to present the said cheque after some time. The complainant again presented the cheque in his account and his banker forwarded the cheque for collection to ICICI Bank, Solan but the cheque was again dishonoured due to the reason of “funds insufficient. The bank of the complainant intimated, it about the non encashment of the cheque vide memo of 9.11.2010. It is submitted that the accused deliberately and intentionally issued bogus cheque in favour of the complainant, knowing that he was not having sufficient funds in his account, so as to get the payment clear. It is submitted that a legal notice of 13.12.2010 was posted on 14.12.2010 through the registered post vis-a-vis the accused, but the accused did not make the payment of the cheque amount. Hence the complaint.

3. Notice of accusation, stood put, to the accused/petitioner herein, by the learned trial Court, for his committing an offence, punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. In proof of its case, the complainant examined two witnesses. On conclusion of recording, of, the complainant's evidence, the statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by the learned trial Court, wherein, he claimed innocence, and, pleaded false implication.

4. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings, of, conviction upon the accused/respondent herein, for his committing, an, offence punishable under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In an appeal preferred therefrom, by the accused/respondent herein, before, the learned Sessions Judge concerned, the latter, affirmed the apposite findings of conviction, and, sentence recorded in the judgment, pronounced, by the learned trial Court.

5. The accused/petitioner herein, stands aggrieved, by the findings recorded, by the learned Sessions Judge concerned, bearing concurrence vis-a-vis, the judgment, of conviction recorded against him, by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel appearing, for the petitioner/accused herein, has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of conviction, recorded by the learned Sessions Judge concerned, standing not based on a proper appreciation, by him, of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation, by him, of the material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of conviction rather warranting reversal, by this Court, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdict