Sandeep Sharma, J.

(Oral)

1. Instanot criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment dated 11.8.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.56-N/4 of 2024 (CISh Regd. No. 56/2022), affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.4.2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Case HNo.113/2018, 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.1,10,000 to the complainant.

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 he approached the accused, who was interested in selling his laHnd, for purchase of land at Rajgarh, and entered into an agreement to sell of the land comprising khasra No. 874/791, plot 1, total measurifng 01.18 bighas to the extent of 00.02 bighas of the land situate at revenue village Fetahpur Sidhori, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh on 6.9.2014 at Rajgarh. Since accused failed to comply with terms of the sale agreement, complainant issued legal notice through his counsel on 3.7.2018 calling upon him to get the sale deed executed in favour of the complainant. Though after receipt of legal notice, accused agreed to return the money and issued a cheque bearing No.318683 dated 6.8.2018, amounting to Rs. 85,000/-, in favour of the complainant, however same on its presentation gto the bank concerned was dishonoured with remarks “funds insufficient”. iImmediately, after receipt of aforesaid memo, complainant served legal notice upon the accused, thereby calling upon him to make the payment good within stipulated time, but in vain, as such, 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 30.4.2022, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convictedH 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 11.8.2025. 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 sentence recorded by the court below.

5. Vide order dated 1.1.2026, this Court suspended the substantive sentence imposed by the court below, subject to petitioner’s gdepositing 30% of the compensation amount and furnishing personal ibonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, within four weeks, however fact remains that aforesaid order never came to be complied with. Repeatedly, this Court was informed that talks are going on with the respondent/complainant for amicable settlement, but no compromise, if any, arrived inter-se parties has been placed on record. Since order passed by this Court has not been complied with coupled with the fact that petitioner is not coming forward to impart instructions to his counsel, this Court is compelled 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 upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentefnce passed by the lear