(Oral)

Sandeep Sharma, J.

1. Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment dated 6.9.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.116-ASJ-II/10 of 2024 affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6.5.2024, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Complaint No.77/3 of 2022, 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. 4,40,000/- 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 accused entered into an agreement with her for sale of land measuring 00.05 biswas, comprised in Khata/Khatani No. 39 min. Khasra No. 3162/297/199 in Mauza Dharja, Hadbast No. 578, Tehsil and District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, for a total consideration of Rs. 4,00,000/-. Complainant alleged that in terms of afore agreement, she paid sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the accused, however accused failed to get the same executed in her favour and subsequently, with a view to discharge his liability issued cheque bearing No.042374 dated 8.12.2021, amounting to Rs.4,00,000/-, drawn on State Bank of India Branch Nauni, in favour of the complainant, however cheque on its presentation to the bank concerned was dishonoured with remarks “Exceeds Arrangement” vide memo Ext.CW1/C. Immediately, after receipt of aforesaid memo, complainant served legal notice Ext.CW1/D 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 6.5.2024, 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 and order of sentence recorded by the learned trial Court, petitioner-accused preferred an appeal before the learned first appellate Court, but the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 6.9.2025. 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 learned courts below.

5. Vide order dated 18.2.2026, this Court suspended the substantive sentence imposed by the learned trial court, subject to petitioner’s depositing 30% 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 learned trial Court. Though aforesaid order was complied with, but thereafter matter was repeatedly adjourned enabling the petitioner-accused to deposit the balance amount or settle the matter with complainant, but in vain. In the afore background, 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 Additional Sessions Judge, thereby upholding 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 the learned courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, rather this Court finds that both the learned courts below have dealt with each and every aspect of t