Point of Law: This Court has a very limited jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.PC, to re-appreciate the evidence, especially, in view of the concurrent findings of fact and law recorded by the courts below.

ORDER :

Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C, lays challenge to judgment dated 07.10.2020, passed by learned Sessions Judge (Forest), Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.41-R/10 of 2018, titled Sh. Prem Singh vs. Sh. Sanjeev Bhapta, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.11.2018, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rohru, District Shimla, in Case No. 168-3 of 2018, whereby learned court below while holding the petitioner/accused (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant in lieu of dishonoured cheques.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent-complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant) instituted complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rohru, District Shimla, alleging therein that during apple season of 2017, he had taken orchard of Nank Chand, son of late Sh. Chet Ram, on contract basis and he had supplied empty apple boxes to the accused and also packed the same after grading of apples. Complainant alleged that he packed 1400 apple boxes belonging to the accused @ Rs.155/- per box including charges of material as well as packaging. Complainant alleged that in addition to above, amount of Rs.4,000/- was spent for lifting material from Shallan to Mandharli. With a view to discharge his liability, accused issued cheque No. 045265, dated 05.01.2018, amounting to Rs.2,21000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Pujarli, however, fact remains that on presentation, aforesaid cheque was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the saving account of accused. Since despite having received statutory demand notice, accused failed to make the payment good, complainant had no option, but to file proceedings under Section 138 of the Act.

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

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by court below, accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Sessions Judge (Forest), Shimla, H.P., which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 07.10.2020. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by courts below.

5. Vide order dated 10.2.2021, substantive sentence sentence imposed by court below, was suspended by this Court subject to petitioner’s depositing balance amount in the trial court, but fact remains that aforesaid order never came to be complied with. Perusal of the Court file reveals that repeatedly matter came to be adjourned at the request of learned counsel representing the petitioner enabling him to deposit the balance amount.

6. Today, learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted before this Court that despite repeated communication, petitioner is not coming forward to impart instructions to him and as such, this Court can proceed to decide the case on its own merit.

7. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the judgment laid challenge in the instant proceedings, this Court finds no force in the submission of learned counsel representing the petitioner that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the facts as well as evidence led on record by the respective parties in