__________________________________________________________________________

Whether approved for reporting?

_____________________________________________________________________________

_______________________u___________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 readwith Section 401 of Cr.P.C. lays challenge to judgment dated 02.04.2022, passed b y the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.09 of 2021, titled as Pyar Chand Vs. Shriram Finance Co., affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.03.2020/06.03.2020, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, Lahaul and Spiti at Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Complaint No.56-I/2012, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, “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 paycompensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent-company.

22. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent-company (hereinafter, ‘complainant’) instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, in the comp.etent Court of law, alleging therein accused approached the complainant to finance a vehicle, Tata Motors bearing registration No.HP-34-B-4079, which was accepted by the complainant and sum of ₹3,75,0o00/- was advanced to accused with finance charges of ₹1,55,813/- i.e. total agreement value of ₹5,30,813/-, vide agreement dated 31.03.2009. Accused while accepting all terms and conditions and liabilityu to repay the loan amount advanced to him, also agreed interest roate including all other overdue or other charges etc. according to loan/hire purchase/loan-cum-hypothecation agreement executed on 31.03.2009. Since accused remained regular defaulter in payhment and had not paid the regular installment to the complainant, who subsequently with a view to regularise his account and discharge his liability, issued Cheque No.355308 dated 31.01.2012, amounting toH₹4,80,000/-, drawn at UCO Bank, Branch Kullu, however, aforesaid Cheque on its presentation to the Bank concerned, was dishonoured with the remarks “Funds Insufficient”. After receipt of aforesaid return memo, complainant served accused with a legal notice calling upon him to make the payment good well within stipulated time. However, since petitioner- accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, respondent/complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of materia.l adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 03.03.2020/06.03.2020, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138o of the Act and accordingly, convictedand sentenced him, as per the description given hereinabove.

4. Though, at the first instance, accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learnedu Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesoh, however, same was dismissed vide judgment dated 02.04.2022. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-accused has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein his acqhuittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by theCourts below.

5. Vide order dated 12.01.2024, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court stayed the substantive sentence imposed by the learned Court below, subject to petitioner/accused depositing 20% of the compensation amount and furnishing personal and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/-. Though aforesaid order was complied with, but thereafter, matter was repeatedly adjourned at the request of learned counsel representing the petitioner, enabling him to deposit the remaining