ORDER :

By way of instant Cr. Revision filed under S. 397 read with S.401 CrPC lays challenge to judgment dated 20.12.2019, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in Cr. Appeal No.72/2015, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.8.2014 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1 Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in criminal complaint No. 38-I/2011// 30-III/2011, whereby learned court below, while holding petitioner-accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter, ‘Act’) convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the respondent-complainant (hereinafter, ‘complainant’).

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that complainant instituted a complaint under S.138 of the Act alleging therein that he had advanced sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant, who with a view to discharge his liability issued cheque No. 831354 dated 1.8.2010 (Ext. CW-1/A) for Rs.1,00,000, However, the fact remains that the cheque on its presentation was dishonoured with the endorsement, “exceeds arrangement” vide memo, Ext. CW-2/A. After having received memo from the bank concerned, complainant served accused with a legal notice Exhibit CW-3/A, calling him to make good the payment within the time stipulated in the notice, but since accused failed to make good the payment within the stipulated in the legal notice, complainant filed complaint under S.138 of the Act in the competent court of law. On the basis of evidence collected on record by respective parties, learned trial Court held petitioner guilty of having committed offences punishable under S.138 and convicted and sentenced him as per description given herein above.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned trial Court, accused preferred an appeal in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 20.12.2019. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after setting aside judgments of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned courts below.

4. Vide order dated 4.3.2020, this court, while suspending substantive sentence imposed upon the accused by learned trial Court, directed the accused to deposit 15% of cheque amount within a period of four weeks. Though the said order was complied with but, learned counsel for the accused informed this court that the accused is ready and willing to compromise the matter with the complainant, by paying entire amount of compensation and as such, court adjourned the matter, but despite repeated adjournments, neither the accused has come present in the court nor has paid the entire amount of compensation to the complainant.

5. Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the accused states that despite repeated communications, accused is not coming forward to impart instruction, as such, this court may decide the petition on its merit.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record this court finds it difficult to agree with learned counsel for the accused that the learned courts below have failed to appreciate evidence in its right perspective, rather this court finds that the complainant successfully proved on record that he had advanced Rs.1,00,000 to the accused, who, in turn, had issued cheque Exhibit CW-1/A with a view to discharge his liability. Though the accused in his statement recorded under S.313 CrPC denied the case of the complainant in toto but if the cross-examination conducted upon the complainant by defence counsel is perused in its entirety, it clearl