IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA TH ON THE 29 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 30 OF 2020 Between:-

SH. SIKANDER SINGH KHIMTA SON OF TIKKAR RAM, R/O VILLAGE MANDHOLE, TEHSIL JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.

... PETITIONER (BY MR. SARTHAK MEHTA, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. SH. BAL KRISHAN RAWT S/O OF SH. KEWAL RAM, R/ O VILLAGE KHONI, TEHSIL JUBBAL, DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.

2. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY HOME, CHOTTA SHIMLA, H.P.

.. RESPONDENTS (BY MR. V.S. CHAUHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR. AJAY KASHYAP, ADVOCATE, ADVOCATE, FOR R-1 MR. SUDHIR BHATNAGAR AND MR. DESH RAJ THAKUR, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATES GENERAL WITH MR. NARINDER THAKUR, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL, FOR R-2)

Whether approved for reporting:

This petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:

O R D E R

By way of instant criminal revision petition filed under S.397 and

401 CrPC, challenge has been laid to judgment dated 15.10.2019, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Shimla District Shimla in Cr. Appeal No. 10-R/10 of 2014/2012, titled Sikander Singh KKhimta vs. Bal Krishan Rawat, affirming judgment of conviction fand order of sentence dated 31.5.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jubbal, District Shimla in complaint No . 33/3 of 2009, whereby learned court below, while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under S.138 of the Act, (hereinafter Act’), convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six month and pay a compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- to Cthe respondent-complainant (hereinafter, ‘complainant’).

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that the complainant instituted a complaint under S.138 of Act in the competent court of law alleging therein that he advanced Rs.1,25,000 in the year 2008 to the accused, who with a view to discharge his liability issued cheque No. 605587 dated 10.1.2009 in the sum of Rs.1,25,000/- to the complainant, but the fact remains that the aforesaid cheque on its presentation was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds, as such, complainant was compelled to institute the complaint under S.138 of the Act.

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

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned trial Court,, accused preferred an appeal before learned Additional Sessions Judge, II Shimla, but the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 15.10.2019. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this court in the instant proceedings praying therein for his acquittal after setting aside judgments of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learn ed courts below. 5. Vide order dated 27.8.2020, this court, while suspending the substantive sentence imposed upon the accused by learned trial Court, directed the accused deposit 1/3rd of compensation amount. Accused, besides depositing 1/3^rd amount in compliance to order dated 27.8.2020 in the Registry of this Court has also deposited Rs. 41,600/- with the learned trial Court.

6. Today during proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions, states that since entire amount of compens ation stands deposited with the Registry of this Court and the learned trial Court and accused is ready and willing to get the said amount greleased in favour of the complainant, this court may proceed to order compounding of the offence in exercise of power under S.147 of the Act.

H 7. Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Senior Advocate representing the complainant, who is otherwise present in the court states that though the complainant has no objection in compounding the offence but he may be awarded