IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.122 of 2026 Date of Decision: 6.3.2026 _____________________________________________________________________

Rajinder Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus Anu Thakur …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Mr. Jagat Pal, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr. Mohinder Verma, Advocate.

___________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Cr.MP(M) No. 248 of 2026 By way of instant application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicant/petitioner for condonation of delay in maintaining the accompanying criminal revision petition, which is barred by limitation. Learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant/respondent fairly states that no reply is required to be filed Hand this Court may pass appropriate orders.

Having carefully perused the averments contained in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, this Court finds no impediment in accepting the prayer, especially when delay caused in maintaining accompanying criminal revision petition does not appear to be intentional or willful, rather same has occurred on account of circumstances which were completely beyond the control of the applicant, as such, the same deserves to be condoned.

In view of above, delay, which has been o.therwise sufficiently explained, is condoned. The application is disposed of.

Cr. Revision No.122 of 2026 Be registered. o Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment dated 27.1.2018, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Praudesh, in Criminal Appeal No. 35-S/10 of 2016, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2.5.2016, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-5, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Complaint No.91/3 of 2015, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the “Act"), convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- to the respondent-complainant (herein after referred to as the “complainant” ).

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, in the competent court of law, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his liability issued cheque amounting to Rs. 30,000/- in favour of the complainant, but fact remains that the aforesaid cheque on its presentation, was dishonoured on account of insuf.ficient funds. Since accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, respondent/complainant was com pelled to initiate proceedings before the competent Court of law undoer Section 138 of the Act.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 2.5.2016, held uthe petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, sentenced him as per the description given herein above.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the court below, accused preferred an appeal before learned First Appellate Court, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment 27.1.2018, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, present petitioner-accused has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein her acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below.

5. Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, Mr. Jagat Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused