(Oral)

Sandeep Sharma, J.

1. Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, lays challenge to judgment dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.RBT 96-S/10 of 2024/22, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 25.08.2022 and order of sentence dated 27.08.2022, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in criminal Case No.256/3 of 2016, 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 eight months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5,50,000/- 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 in the competent Court of law, alleging therein that in the month of August 2013, the accused approached him and secured a debt of ₹4,00,000/- for publishing the books for the period of one year. After one year, accused issued four cheques amounting to ₹1,00,000/- each bearing No.000021, 000022, 000026 and 000027 dated 04.05.2016, drawn/payable at HDFC Bank, The Mall, Shimla, H.P. for lawful consideration and to discharge the aforesaid legally enforceable debt/liability due towards the complainant against Account No.50100075435540, however, aforesaid cheques on its presentation were 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, 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 25.08.2022 and 27.08.2022, 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 Sessions Judge, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, but same was dismissed vide judgment dated 04.09.2024. 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 by the learned Court below.

5. Vide order dated 30.12.2024, this Court stayed the substantive sentence imposed by the learned Court below subject to accused depositing 30% of the compensation amount in addition to the amount already deposited and furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount within a period of eight weeks. However, fact remains that aforesaid order was never complied. This Court, taking note of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, referred the matter to mediation. Though accused agreed before the learned Mediator to pay the entire amount of compensation awarded by the learned trial Court, but fact remains that till date, not even a single penny has been paid. As per compromise arrived before learned Mediator, accused was required to pay entire amount of compensation on or before 16.02.2026, but yet this Court, taking note of the fact that accused had lost vision in his eyes, adjourned the matter to 27.04.2026, on which date petitioner stated that in terms of settlement, sum of Rs.1,15,000/- is lying deposited with the learned trial Court and sum of Rs.1,0