H Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, lays challenge to judgment dated 10.06.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.06 of 2025, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.01.2025, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi, H.P. in Criminal complaint No.26 of 2022, w.hereby the learned Court below, while holding the petitioner-accused (in short the "accused") guilty of having committed offence punishab le under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in shorto the "Act"), convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- to respondent No.1-complainant (in short the "complainuant").

2. Precisoely, 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 comhpetent Court of law, alleging therein that accused had purchased apple crop from him for a sum of Rs.2,29,000/-. With a view to discharge his aforesaid liability, accused issued two cheques i.e. cheque bearing No.053047 dated 10.12.2021 amounting to Rs.1,29,000/- and cheque bearing No.053048 dated 10.12.2021 amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the complainant, but aforesaid cheques on its presentation were dishonoured with the remarks “Account Closed”. 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/orde r dated 17.01.2025, held the accused guilty of his having committoed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as per the description given herein above.

4. Being aggriueved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Court below, accused preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, but same was dismissed vide judgment dated 10.06.2025. In the afohresaid 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 27.08.2025, this Court stayed the substantive sentence imposed by the learned Court below subject to the accused depositing 30% of the compensation amount and furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount within a period of four weeks. Though aforesaid order was complied with, but thereafter matter was repeatedly adjourned, enabling .the petitioner either to settle the matter with the complainant or to deposit the remaining amount, but in vain. On 01.04.2026, statem ent came to be made by the learned counsel for the petitioner thaot entire amount shall be deposited on or before next date of hearing, as such, this Court adjourned the matter for today’s date, but today accused has neither come present nor deposited the balance amount, as suuch, this Court has no option, but to decide the petition on its own merits.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned judhgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, whereby judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel for the accused, that learned Courts below have failed to appr