Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 401 read with Section 397 of Cr.P.C., lays challenge to judgment dated 29.11.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Una, District Una, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.134 of 2023, titled as Chattar Singh Vs. Sanjeev Kumar, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.07.2023, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, bearing CIS Regd. No.24842 of 2013, case No.206-I-2013, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, “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 one year and pay compensation to the tune of ₹4,00,000/- to the respondent-complainant.

2.

Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent-complainant (hereinafter, ‘complainant’) instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, in the competent Court of law, stating therein that accused, being familiar with him, borrowed sum of ₹2,00,000/- from him for his personal needs. Though accused assured to return the money within a period of two months, but since he was unable to do the needful within two months, he issued Cheque No.703232 dated 20.06.2013 amounting to ₹2,00,000/-, which ultimately came to be dishonoured on account of ‘insufficient funds’ in the bank account of the accused, vide return memo dated 17.09.2013. Immediately, after receipt of aforesaid return memo, complainant served accused with legal notice dated 14.10.2013, calling upon him to make the payment good well within stipulated time. However, since petitioner-accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, respondent/complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh.

Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 22.07.2023, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him, as per the description given hereinabove.

Though, at the first instance, accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Una, District Una, H.P., however, same was dismissed vide judgment dated 29.11.2023. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-accused has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein his acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the Courts below.

Vide order dated 09.01.2024, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court stayed the substantive sentence imposed by the learned Court below, subject to petitioner/accused depositing 20% of the compensation amount and furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-. Though aforesaid order was complied with, but thereafter matter was repeatedly adjourned, enabling petitioner to deposit the remaining amount, but in vain. Repeatedly, this Court came to be apprised that accused is in the process of settling the dispute with the complainant and as such, matter was adjourned on various dates, but since needful has not been done, as per undertaking given to this Court, this Court has no option but to decide the petition on its own merits.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material adduced on record, vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned judgments, this Court sees no reason to agree with learned counsel representing the petitioner, that Courts below have fallen in grave error while appreciating the evidence, rather this Court finds that both the Courts below have meticulously dealt with each and every aspect of the matter and there is no scope left for interference.