Point of Law: To attract provision of Section 138 of Act, complainant is only required to prove that cheque was issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Instant Criminal Revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to judgment dated 30.12.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge(Forests) Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.14-R/10 of 2018, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 16.05.2018 and order of sentence dated 21.05.2018 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1 Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Case No.143-3 of 2015, titled as Padam Singh vs. Badri Prasad, whereby learned trial Court while holding petitioner-accused guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- to the complainant.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that the respondent/complainant (for short ‘complainant’) filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘Act’) in the competent court of law, alleging therein that on 20.9.2014, accused purchased 600 apple boxes of ‘AAA’ grade at the rate of Rs.1000/- each for total consideration of Rs.6, 00,000/-. Accused with a view to discharge his lawful liability, issued cheque No.054054, dated 10.6.2015, amounting to Rs.6,00,000/- in favour of the complainant drawn at State Bank of India Branch Rohru. However, fact remains that aforesaid cheque on its presentation was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the accused and as such, complainant was compelled to issue statutory notice to the accused calling upon him to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the notice. Since, the accused despite having received notice failed to make the payment good, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, in the competent court of law.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced 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 the description given hereinabove.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned trial court, present petitioner-accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Sessions Judge (Forests) Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 30.12.2019, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after quashing and setting aside the impugned judgments and order passed by learned Courts below.

5. Vide order dated 22.01.2021, this Court suspended the substantive sentence imposed by the Court below subject to petitioner-accused depositing the entire compensation amount However, fact remains that despite repeated opportunities, no amount was deposited. Court case file clearly reveals that matter repeatedly came to be adjourned on the request of learned counsel representing the petitioner, enabling the petitioner to deposit the amount awarded by court below but neither petitioner came present before this court nor has deposited the amount and as such, today during the proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the petitioner fairly states that this Court may proceed to decide the case on its own merit.

6. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned judgment, this Court is not persuaded to agree with the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that Court below has not appreciated the evidence in its right perspective, rather