Honble Vinod Prasad, J.—The revisionist was tried by C.J.M. Rampur in Crl. Appeal No. 05 of 2006, Ram Avtar v. Preetam Singh and another, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981, P.S. Civil Lines, District Rampur.

2. The complaint-allegations against the revisionist as were levelled by Preetam Singh Badhwa were that the revisionist had taken a loan of a total amount of Rs. 2,80,000/- from the complainant on various dates 22-11-1999, 26-11-1999 and 30-11-2000. On the demand being made for return of the said loan amount, the accused issued an account payee cheque No. 090667 dated 5-2-2002 of Punjab and Sindh Bank, Bheet, Rampur on 1-3-2002 at 9.00 a.m. at the house of the complainant of an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- which was deposited on the same day by the complainant in his account in the same Bank for encashment. However, the said cheque was dishonoured by the bank on 5-3-2002 because it exceed arrangement. Since the cheque amount remained unpaid, a notice as is contemplated under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was sent by the complainant to the revisionist on 15-3-2002. The complainant also sent another notice on 18-3-2002 to the revisionist through registered post asking for payment of cheque amount. Inspite of receipt of said notices the revisionist accused did not pay the money demanded and consequently the complainant lodged a complaint in Court on 30-4-2002 under Section 138 of N. I. Act.

3. In support of his complaint, the complainant Preetam Singh Badhwa examined himself as P.W. 1, Paramjeet Singh, Manager, Punjab and Sindh Bank, Bheet, District Rampur as P.W. 2 to establish his case.

4. Under Section 313, Cr.P.C. the accused took the defence of false implication and pleaded that he had taken a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- only and the two cheques were given by him by way of security. One of those two cheques is the cheque in dispute, the other cheque was Cheque No. 090668. In his defence the accused-revisionist Ram Avtar Gupta examined himself as D.W. 1.

5. The trial Court after appreciation of the evidences lead in the trial came to the conclusion that the complaint had proved his case beyond all reasonable doubt and consequently it convicted the revisionist vide its impugned judgment dated 31-1-2006 for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and on 2-2-2006, the trial Court sentenced him to two years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further six months simple imprisonment. It further ordered that out of the amount of fine Rs. 2,000/- shall be forfeited in favour of the Government and rest of the amount shall be handed over to the complainant.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence recorded by C.J.M. Rampur on 31-1-2006/2-2-2006, the revisionist preferred Crl. Appeal No. 05 of 2006 before the Sessions Judge, Rampur, which was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3 Rampur for disposal. The aforesaid appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur vide its impugned order dated 28-9-2006 on the grounds that the appellant accused had not complied with the order of depositing Rs. 2,00,000/- within the period of 20 days and that he had also not appeared to argue the appeal. Hence this revision challenging the lower appellate Courts order as well as conviction and sentences mentioned above.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the appeal preferred by the appellant could not have been dismissed on the ground that the interim order passed at the time of admission of the appeal was not complied with by him. He further submitted that the appeal could have been decided on its merit and the criminal appeal could not have been dismissed in default in the absence of the appellant.

8. The learned A.G.A. also could not support the impugned judgment passed by the lower appellate Court on 28-9-2006.

9. I have gone through the two impugned judgments. Negotiab