The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the legal requirements for presenting a cheque and issuing a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment dated 4.10.2010, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2008, reversing the judgment of conviction passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Court No.2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. in case No.40/2 of 2005/1999, whereby the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the accused) was held guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The learned trial Court held the complainant entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.80,000/- to be paid by the accused.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case as emerged from the record are that the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the learned trial Court stating therein that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs. 40,000/- from him as loan on 12.5.1998 and agreed to return the same within a period of three months alongwith interest, but despite several requests having been made by the complainant, accused failed to repay the aforesaid amount and finally the accused issued a cheque No.0936994, dated 12.10.1998 amounting to Rs. 40,000/- drawn on H.P. State Co-operative Bank Limited branch Office at Ghumarwin, in favour of the complainant, which on presentation in the bank by the complainant on 27.2.1999, was returned by the bank with the endorsement “insufficient funds”. Complainant again presented the cheque for payment in the bank on 12.4.1999, however fact remains that same was again returned to the complainant with the remarks “insufficient funds” in the account of the accused. After receiving the aforesaid information from the bank, complainant got legal notice issued under Section 138 of the Act to the accused calling upon him to make the payment of the cheque amount within a period of 7 days from the receipt of the notice, but the accused failed to make the payment of the said cheque, as a result of which, complainant was compelled to file the complaint under Section 138 of the Act.

3. The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced on record, found accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and vide impugned judgment/order dated 29.12.2007/31.12.2007 convicted and sentenced the accused, as per the description given hereinabove.

4. Accused being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court, filed an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, which came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2008. The learned Sessions Judge, vide impugned judgment dated 4.10.2010, accepted the appeal preferred by the accused and set-aside the judgment of conviction recorded by learned trial Court. Hence, in the aforesaid background, complainant approached this Court by way of instant Criminal Revision Petition, praying therein for quashing and setting-aside the impugned judgment dated 4.10.2010, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, H.P.

5. Mr. Umesh Kanwar, learned counsel representing the complainant, vehemently argued that the impugned judgment, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur is not sustainable as the same is not based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence adduced on record by the complainant as well as law on the point and as such, same deserve to be quashed and set-aside. Mr. Kanwar, further contended that lower Appellate Court whi