(Oral)

1. Instanot criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNSS”), lays challenge to judgment dated 14.8.2024, passed by the learhned Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kuulu, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2023, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.5.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Manali, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Complaint No. 110 of 2017, 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. 4,20,000/- 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 Judicial Magistrate First Class Manali, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein thaft in the year 2016, accused purchased apple boxes worth Rs. 3,00,000/- and with a view to discharge his liability issued cheque bearing No.521553 dated 20.1.2017, amounting to Rs.3,00,000/-, drawn on Bank of Baroda, branch Manali, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in favour of the complainant, however cheque on its presentation to the bank concerned was dishonoured with remarks “Funds Insufficient” vide memo dated 25.1.2017. After receipt of aforesaid memo, complainant immediately served demand notice dated 16.2.2017 upon the accused, thereby calling upon him to make the payment good within stipulated time, but since accused failed to do the needful, 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 15.5.2023, 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 14.8.2024. 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 sentence recorded by the court below.

5. Vide order dated 3.12.2024, 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, within four weeks, which order stands duly complied with.

6. Though before deciding the case at hand, this Court afforded an opportunity to the petitioner-accused to settle the matter with the respondent/complainant, but learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused stated that as per instructions, he intends to contest the case on merit.

7. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate, is that learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, while affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in