Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 readwith Section 442 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, lays challenge to judgment dated 16.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.32 of 2024, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 02.03.2024 and order of sentence dated 04.03.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Banjar, District Kullu, H.P. in criminal complaint No.1167-I/19, whereby the learned Court below, while holding the petitioner-accused (in short the "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 two months and p ay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,30,000/- to the responodent-complainant (in short the"complainant").

Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material audduced on record by the respective parties are that complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Banjar, District Kullu, H.P., alleging therein that he had purchased Swift car from the accused for a sumh of Rs.2,00,000/-, out of which, Rs.1,75,000/- was paid in cash and agreement to that effect was also executed on 05.02.2019. After purchase of vehicle, complainant invested Rs.50,000/- on the tyres and insurance Policy of the vehicle. However, after some time, accused requested the complainant to return the vehicle, to which the complainant agreed on the condition to return the consideration amount and invested amount on the vehicle. Accused, with a view to discharge his lawful liability, handed over a cheque bearing No.233080 dated 10.10.2019 amounting of Rs.2,25,000/- to the complainant drawn at SBI Bank, Branch Banjar, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, but aforesaid cheque on its presentation w.as dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the accused. Since accused failed to make the payment good within the stipulated period despite his having received legal noticoe dated 25.10.2019, complainant had no option, but to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in thecompetent Court of law.

Learned triual Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 02.03.2024/ 04.03.2024, held the accused guilty of his having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted andsenhtenced him as per the description given herein above.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Court below, accused preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, but same was dismissed vide judgment dated 16.07.2024. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after setting-aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded bythe learned Court below.

Vide order dated 28.10.2024, this Court stayed the substantive sentence imposed by the learned Court below subject to accused depositing 30% of the compensation amount ando furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount within a period of six weeks. Though aforesaid order was complied with, but thereafter matter came to be adjourned ruepeatedly on the request of learned counsel for the accused, enabling the accused to pay the remaining amount, but in vain. Hence, this Court has no option, but to decide the petition on its ownmerits.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, Distr