IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.Revision No.169 of 2010 Date of decision: 24.9.2010. Ram Krishan … …Petitioner Versus Sangita Sood … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.M.S. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.V.S. Chauhan, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The petitioner is aggrieved by his conviction by the two Courts below sentencing him for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. On the evidence on record, the trial Court found that the petitioner had issued a cheque for valuable consideration of Rs.50,000/- and that on presentation it was dishonoured without any reasonable and justifiable cause. From the evidence on record, the trial Court sentenced the petitioner to pay compensation to the extent of Rs.50,000/- rupees and simple imprisonment for three months which was affirmed by the learned appellate Court. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged a number of grounds urging that the offence infact has not been committed and that the petitioner is innocent of the offences as alleged against him. 4. I have gone through the judgments of both the Courts below. I cannot persuade myself to hold that there is a perversity in the findings arrived at by the Courts below. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. 5. On the question of sentencing the petitioner learned counsel submits that the sentence of imprisonment is harsh. I have given careful consideration to this aspect of the case. What I find is that this Court is being clogged with petitions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which could otherwise be settled before the trial Court. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case the substantive sentence of imprisonment is set aside subject to the condition that the petitioner herein shall deposit the entire compensation before the trial Court within a period of four months from today and on such deposit the same shall be released to the respondent. In case of non-deposit, the sentence of imprisonment shall revive and the petitioner shall undergo the sentence of imprisonment. September 24, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.