ORDER :

1. Instant Cr. Revision petition filed under S. 397 read with S. 401 Cr.P.C. lays challenge to judgment dated 12.3.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh (camp at Paonta Sahib) in Cr. Appeal No. 54-N/10 of 2019, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.5.2020 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 2, Paonta Sahib, in Cr. Case No. 270/2017, whereby learned court, while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, accused), guilty of having committed offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter, ‘Act’) convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,24,000/- to the respondent-complainant (hereinafter ‘complainant’) and in default of payment of compensation, accused had been ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

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 court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 2 Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, stating therein that in January, 2017, accused entered into an agreement with the complainant to purchase Tata Indigo car bearing Registration No. HP-17C-5207. Accused also agreed to pay balance installments alongwith over dues amounting to Rs. 2,25,000, which was financed by Shri Ram City Union Finance Ltd. With a view to discharge his aforesaid liability, accused issued a post dated cheque bearing No. 084434 dated 11.5.2017, for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn on Union bank of India, Paonta Sahib in favour of the complainant. However, the fact remains that said cheque on presentation was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. After receipt of memo from the bank concerned, the complainant served accused with a legal notice calling upon him to make the payment good. Since the accused failed to make payment within the time period stipulated in the legal notice, complainant was compelled to institute proceedings under S.138 of the Act, in the competent court of law.

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

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned court below, accused preferred an appeal in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan (camp at Paonta Sahib), which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 12.3.2020. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after setting judgments of conviction and order of sentence, recorded by learned Courts below.

5. Vide order dated 1.7.2020, this court while suspending the substantive imposed by learned trial Court, directed the accused to deposit 50% of compensation amount and furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000 with one surety in the like amount to eh satisfaction of learned trial Court. Vide order dated 26.7.2021, this court extended the time as was prayed for on behalf of the petitioner to do the needful, by two weeks, but neither the compensation amount has been deposited nor bail bonds have been furnished by the accused.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner despite written communications is not coming forward to impart instructions and as such, matter may be heard and decided on merit.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused material available on record this court finds that the accused in his statement recorded under S.313 Cr.P.C. admitted the factum with regard to his having entered into an agreement in January, 2017 with complainant for purchase of Tata Indigo car beari