Sandeep Sharma, J.

(Oral)

1. Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, lays challenge to judgment dated 20.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.61 of 2024, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.05.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. in criminal complaint No.336 of 2017, 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 six months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,10,000/- to the respondent-complainant (in short the "complainant").

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties are that complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act before the competent Court of law, alleging therein that he, on account of his having cordial relations with the accused, advanced sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the accused on his request on 26.07.2016. Though accused agreed to return the aforesaid amount on or before 26.08.2017, but since he failed to honour his commitment, he, with a view to discharge his lawful liability, issued cheque No.382949, dated 28.08.2017 amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of the complainant. However, aforesaid cheque on its presentation to the bank concerned was 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 notice dated 01.09.2017, 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 by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 29.05.2024, held the accused guilty of his 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 learned Court below, accused preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, but same was dismissed vide judgment dated 20.02.2025. 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 by the learned Court below.

5. Vide order dated 28.04.2025, this Court suspended the substantive sentence imposed by the learned Court below subject to accused depositing 30% of the compensation amount and furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount within a period of four weeks. Though aforesaid order was complied with, but thereafter matter was repeatedly adjourned, enabling the accused to make the balance payment, but in vain. Though repeatedly this Court came to be apprised that parties were in process of settling the dispute amicably inter se them, but fact remains that despite repeated opportunities, nothing has been done, as such, this Court is compelled to decide the petition on its own merits.

6. 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, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, whereby judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. K