Sandeep Sharma, J.

(Oral)

1. Instanot criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment dated 2.8.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal CIS Regd. No. 67 of 2024, affihrming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.3.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-3, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Complaint No. 834 of 2021 H(CNR No. HPMA-020066372021), 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 eight months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,00,000/- to the complainant.

::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2026 12:49:47 :::CIS

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent/complainant lodged complaint under Section 138 of the Act before the competent court of law, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his liability issued cheque Hbearing No.278164 dated 14.9.2021, amounting to Rs.10,00,000/-, drawn at State Bank of India, Branch Sadar, Bilaspur, District Mandi, Hifmachal Pradesh, in favour of the complainant, however cheque on its presentation to the bank concerned was dishonoured with remarks “Funds Insufficient” vide memo dated 18.10.2021. Immediately, after receipt of aforesaid memo, complainant served legal notice dated 8.11.2021 upon the accused, thereby calling upon him to make the payment good within stipulated time, but since despite receipt of notice, accused failed to make the payment, complainant had no option, but to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the competent court of law.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record iby the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 12.3.2024, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and 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, petitioner-accused preferred an appeal before the learned first appellate Court, but the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 2.8.2024. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set- aside the judgment of conviction and order of Hsentence recorded by the court below.

5. Vide order dated 6.1.2025, this Court suspended the substantive sentence imposed by the court below, subject to petitioner’s depositing 50% of the compensation amount and furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Though afore order was complied with, but thereafter matter was repeatedly adjourned on the request of the petitioner, enabling him to deposit the balance amount, but nothing has been done. Repeatedly, this Court came to be apprised that talks for amicable settlement are going on inter-se complaint and petitioner-accused, but fact gremains that till date, no compromise, if any, has been placed on record iand as such, this Court has no option but to decide the petition on merit.

6. Having carefully perused grounds taken in the appeal vis-à-vis reasoning assigned by the learned Sessions Judge, thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, rather this Court finds that both the courts below have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter very meticulously and there is no scope of interference.

7. In his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, accused claimed himself