IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 705 of 2024 Date of Decision: 26.02.2026 _______________________________________________________

Manoj Kumar …….Petitioner Versus Punjab National Bank and another f … Respondents _______________________________________________________

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? ¹ For the Petitioner: Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Sanket Sankhyan, Advocate vice Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr.Rajan Kahol, Mr.Vishal Panwar Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banstu, h Deputy Advocates Generals for respondent No.2/State.

g_______________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

H Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section

438 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, lays challenge to judgment dated 29.08.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P in Criminal Appeal No.443 of 2022 titled as Manoj Kumar vs Punjab National Bank and another, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 11.12.2018 and order of sentence dated 24.05.2022 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist

1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Class, Court No.2 Hamirpur, H.P in Criminal Complaint No.77/01 of

2017 for commission of offence punishable under SectioPn 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, whereby learned trial Court, while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (for short ‘Act’) convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple i mprisonment for a period of six months and pay compensation of Rs.60,000/-to the respondent-

complainant (hereinafter, ‘complainant’).

2. Precisoely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings aCs well as evidence adduced on record by the respective parties are that the respondent-complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the competent Court of law, alleging therein that cheque Ex.C1 bearing No.318375 dated 17.06.2017, iamounting to Rs.50,000/-, having been issued by the petitioner-

accused towards discharge of his lawful liability was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the accused vide memo Ex.C2. Though, at the first instance, complainant issued a legal notice Ex.C3, thereby calling upon accused to make payment good well within stipulated time but since he failed to make the payment good well within stipulated time, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the competent Court of law, which subsequently, on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, held the accused guiltyP of having committed offence punishable under S. 138 of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as per description given herein above.

3. Though, being aggrieved aond dissatisfied with aforesaid judgment of conviction dated 11.1 2.2018 and order of sentence dated 24.05.2022 passed by JMFC, Court No.2 Hamirpur, Distt. Hamirpur, H.P, accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessionos Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P, but same was Cdismissed vide judgment dated 29.08.2024. 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 passed by Courts idetailed hereinabove.

4. Vide order dated 05.11.2024, this Court suspended the substantive sentence imposed upon the accused by learned trial Court, subject to the accused depositing 30% of the compensation amount in addition to amount already deposited within a period of four weeks and furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-, with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court during the same