ORDER

By way of instant criminal revision petition, challenge has been laid to judgment dated 11.07.2012, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No.12-S/10 of 2012, titled Roshan Lal Sood vs. Sh. Rupinder Ahuja, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.10.2011 & 24.10.2011, respectively, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.3, Shimla, H.P., in complaint case No. 323-3 of 2011/05, titled Rupinder Ahuja vs. R.L. Sood, whereby court below while holding petitioner-accused (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused’) guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay compensation to the tune Rs. 40,000/- to the complainant.

2. Precisely, the facts as emerge from the record are that respondent-complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.3, Shimla, H.P, alleging therein that he is running his business in the name and style of M/s Swaran Flour Mills. Accused had purchased flour from the complaint and with a view to discharge his liability to tune of Rs.20,350, drawn three cheques, i.e. cheque bearing No. 302879, dated 13.02.2005, amounting to Rs.2850/-, cheque bearing No. 302880, dated 14.02.2005, amounting to Rs. 3325/- and cheque bearing No.302883, dated 17.02.2005, amounting to Rs.14,175/-, in favour of the complainant. However, fact remains that aforesaid cheques on its’ presentation to the bank concerned, were dishonoured on account of ‘insufficient funds’ in the bank account of the accused. Complainant after having received memo from the bank concerned, served accused with legal notice calling upon him to make the payment good within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of said notice. Since, accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, complainant was compelled to institute proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the competent court of law.

3. Learned trial court on the basis of pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by respective parties, held accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him, as per description given hereinabove. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, H.P which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 11.07.2012. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction and order of sentence recorded by courts below.

4. Vide order dated 31.08.2012, this Court while suspending the substantive sentence imposed by courts below, directed the accused to deposit entire amount of compensation, i.e. Rs. 40,000/-, if not already deposited. However, fact remains that aforesaid order never came to be complied with, as a consequence of which, accused, who is more than 90 years old, remained behind bars for more than one month. Since, there was none to represent him in the instant proceedings, this Court appointed Ms. Shradha Karol, Advocate, as Legal Aid Counsel. On 24.09.2021, accused came present in the Court and claimed before this Court that he has already paid entire sum of compensation awarded by the court below, which fact was seriously disputed by Mr. Bhupinder Ahuja, learned Counsel representing the complainant. However, Mr. Ahuja, on instructions, from his client has fairly stated that keeping in view the age of the accused, coupled with the fact that he has already served the sentence for one month, complainant is ready and willin