ORDER :

By way of instant Cr. Revision petition filed under S.397 read with S. 401 CrPC, challenge has been laid to judgment dated 21.11.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in Cr. Appeal No. 15/2017, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.11.2016/3.12.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.2, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in Cr. Complaint No. 3-I/2011// 3-III/2011, whereby learned trial Court, while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offences punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter, ‘Act’), convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay Rs. 90,000/- as compensation to the respondent/complainant (hereinafter, ‘complainant/).

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that the complainant instituted a complaint under S. 138 of the Act, in the competent court of law, alleging therein that the accused issued cheque No. 030756, dated 21.7.2010 amounting to Rs.50,000/- drawn upon Kangra Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., in discharge of his legally enforceable liability, which was presented by the complainant for encashment to his banker i.e. Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Bank Limited, Branch Office Dehar, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh but the same was returned unpaid with the remarks, “insufficient funds” and said information was given to the complainant vide memo dated 21.9.2010 by his banker. After having received memo from the Bank, complainant served the accused with legal notice, Ext. CW-2/B, calling upon him to make good the payment within the time stipulated in the notice, but when the accused failed to make good the payment within the stipulated time, complainant was compelled to institute complaint under S.138 of the Act in the competent Court of law.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence collected on record by respective parties, held accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under 138 of the act and convicted and sentenced him as per description given herein above.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned court below, accused preferred an appeal before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, but the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 21.12.2019. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction and order of sentence.

5. Vide order dated 2.3.2020, this court, while suspending the substantive sentence imposed upon the accused, directed him to deposit 50% of the compensation amount. Although aforesaid order was duly complied with, but the matter repeatedly came to be adjourned enabling the accused to pay the entire amount of compensation to the complainant.

6. Today during the proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is not coming forward to impart instructions, as such, the matter can be heard and decided on merit.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record this court finds no force in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned courts below have misread the evidence, as a consequence of which findings, detrimental to the accused have come on record, rather, careful perusal of evidence led on record by the parties clearly proves that the accused with a view to discharge his liability issued cheque in the sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant, but the same was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in his bank account.

8. In the case at hand, complainant with a view to prove his case, besides examining himself as CW-1 also examined, CW-2 Prem Singh and CW-3 P.C. Bhatia.

9. Accused in his statement recorded u