IN HE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 129 of 2018 Date of Decision: 11.09.2018.

___________________________________________________________________ Tedhi Singh ……...Petitioner.

Versus Narayan Dass ……....Respondent.

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting1? Yes.

For the petitioner: Mr. Nitin Khanna, Advocate, For the respondent: Mr. Virender Singh Chauhan, Advocate.

____________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.PC., is directed against the judgment dated 11.4.2018, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2014/21 of 2016, afÏrming the judgment/order of conviction dated 4.3.2014 and 6.3.2014, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul and Spiti at Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., in Criminal case No. 642-1 of 2011, whereby the learned trial Court while holding 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 one year and to pay compensation to the `

tune of 7,00,000/-

2. Fact as emerge from the record are that respondent- complainant preferred a complaint against the petitioner-accused, under

1Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?

Section 138 of the Act, in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul and Spiti at Kullu, District Kullu, alleging therein that the petitioner-accused, who deals in the business of fruits during the fruit season, approached him with a request to advance him sum of Rs. 7.00 lac, to carry out his business smoothly on return basis. Complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 7 lac, to the accused with an assurance that money would be returned within a period of one week. Subsequently, in the last week of August, 2011, petitioner-accused issued a cheque amounting Rs. 7 lac, bearing No. 92536262 dated 14.10.2011, payable at Union Bank of India, Kullu Branch, in favour of the complainant, however, on presentation, same was returned by the bank concerned vide memo dated 14.10.2011, with an endorsement “insufÏcient funds”. After having received aforesaid memo from the bank, complainant served the accused with legal notice dated 24.10.2011, calling upon him to make the payment good, but since he failed to make the payment within the stipulated period despite issuance of legal notice, respondent/complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings before the competent court of law under Section 138 of the Act.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, sentenced him as per the description given herein above.

4. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court, the petitioner-accused preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, H.P., which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 11.4.2018. In the aforesaid background, present petitioner-accused approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein his acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below.

5. On 9.5.2018, this Court while suspending the substantive sentence imposed by the court below directed the accused to deposit 50 % of the fine/compensation amount, within a period of four weeks, but despite repeated opportunities, accused failed to deposit the amount and accordingly, this Court vide order dated 31.7.2018, ordered that in case, amount is not deposited within the period of two weeks, respondent complainant shall be at liberty to get the judgment of learned trial Court executed in accordance with law.

6. Today during the proceedings of the case, learned