The court modified the sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act from imprisonment to 'till the rising of the Court' based on the deposit of compensation and principles of justice.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

Petitioner-Dinesh Negi has preferred the present Criminal Revision Petition, against the judgment, dated 29^th December, 2021, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’), passed in Criminal Appeal No. 29-S/10 of 2020, titled as Dinesh Negi versus Sahil Sood.

2. Vide judgment, dated 29^th December, 2021, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 29^th February, 2020, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 1, Solan, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’) in Criminal Case No. 538-3 of 2012, titled as Sahil Sood versus Dinesh Negi.

3. By virtue of the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the learned trial Court has convicted the petitioner, for the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’) and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,50,000/-.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties, to the lis, are, hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court.

5. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present revision petition, before this Court, as borne out from the record, may be summed up, as under:

5.1. Complainant-Sahil Sood filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, against the accused, on the ground that the accused had issued cheque No. 897915, dated 18^th September, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as‘cheque in question’), amounting toRs. 5,20,000/-, in favour of the complainant, as part payment of his liability, towards the complainant. The cheque, thereafter, was presented for encashment by the complainant to his banker, i.e. Syndicate Bank, Solan Branch. The banker of the complainant forwarded the cheque in question to the drawee bank, i.e. Punjab National Bank, Balag, through its Branch at The Mall, Solan Branch, but, the same was dishonoured and was returned alongwith the memo, dated 20^th September, 2012, on account of insu Intimation of the same was received by the complainant, through his banker, alongwith the memo of the banker of the accused.

5.2. Thereafter, the requisite legal notice was issued, calling upon the accused, to make the payment of the amount of the cheque in question, with fifteen days, after the receipt of the said notice, but, despite the receipt of notice, neither the same was replied, nor the payment was made. Subsequently, the complaint was filed before the learned trial Court.

5.3. The learned trial Court found a prima facie case for commission of the offence, under Section 138 of the NI Act, as such, the otices were issued to the accused, vide order dated 21^st November, 2012.

5.4. After securing the presence of the accused, the learned trial Court found a sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, for the commission of the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, Notice of Accusation, was put to him, vide order, dated 12^th February, 2014. When the Notice of Accusation was put to the accused, he pleaded not guilty.

5.5. Thereafter, the complainant was directed to adduce evidence in order to substantiate the Notice of Accusation, put to the accused. Consequently, the complainant appeared in the witness box on 21^st May, 2014, and closed his evidence. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded, under Section 313 CrPC, on 29^th May, 2014. The accused has not led any defence evidence. As such, his evidence was ordered to be closed, vide order, dated 9^th July, 2014.

5.6. Subsequently, due to the non-appearance of the accused, he was declared Proclaimed Offender, vide order, dated 21^st June, 2017.

5.7. Thereafter, the complainant had moved an application, under Section 311 CrPC, which was allowed by the learned trial Cou