ORDER :

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. Instant criminal revision petition filed under S. 397 read with S. 401 CrPC, lays challenge to judgment dated 20.7.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge Kullu, HP in Cr. Appeal No. 06 of 2019, titled Gian Chand vs. Dharam Chand, affirming judgment and order of conviction dated 8.3.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Lahul & Spiti at Kullu in Cr. Complaint No. 03-1/2013, titled Dharam Chand vs. Gian Chand, whereby learned trial Court, 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 him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent-complainant (hereinafter, 'complainant') and, in default of payment of compensation, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that, respondent/complainant instituted a complaint under S. 138 of the Act in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahul and Spiti at Kullu alleging therein that since the accused was well known to him and they were having friendly relations, he advanced a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the accused for construction of house who further with a view discharge his legally enforceable liability, issued a cheque bearing No. 745482 dated 26.10.2012 amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- drawn at Andhra Bank Kullu branch. However, the fact remains that on presentation of cheque Exhibit CB, was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds vide memo Exhibit CC. Complainant issued a legal notice Exhibit CD calling upon the accused to make good the payment within stipulated time but since he failed to do the same, complainant had no option but to institute complaint under S. 138 of the Act. Learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence collected on record, held the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under S. 138 of the Act and convicted and sentenced him as per description given above.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment and order of conviction dated 8.3.2019 passed by learned trial Court, accused preferred an appeal before learned Sessions Judge Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 20.7.2019. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after setting aside judgments and order of conviction recorded by learned courts below.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record this court finds that the accused has nowhere disputed his signatures on the cheque and similarly he has also not disputed issuance of cheque by him but in his statement recorded under S. 313 CrPC, he has claimed that a blank cheque was issued by him to one Smt. Amra Devi as security, but complainant, in connivance with aforesaid Amra Devi, misused the same. Having taken note of the fact that there is no dispute with regard to issuance of cheque and signatures thereupon of accused only, question which needs to be determinated is, "whether cheque in question was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable liability or same was issued as a security, as claimed by accused in his statement recorded under S. 313 CrPC."

5. Complainant in the case at hand, with a view to prove his case, examined himself as CW-1. Statement of complainant, if read in its entirety, clearly reveals that he in his evidence, which came to be led on record as Exhibit CA stated the facts almost same to those stated in his complaint under S. 138 of the Act. He stated that on 16.8.2012, accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the construction of house and with a view to discharge his liability, handed over cheque Exhibit CB amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- to him, payable at Andhra Bank Branch Kullu. He stated that on presentation of cheque to h