IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Revision No. 224 of 2010 Decided on: 18th March, 2011 ___________________________________________________________ Vinay Sharma. …Petitioner. Versus Mohinder Singh. … Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Mr. Amit Singh Chandel. For the Respondent : Mr. Malay Kaushal, Advocate for the respondent. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge (Oral): The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,25,000/-. Out of this amount, the learned trial Court has directed to realize a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- to be paid to the complainant as compensation. The petitioner appeared to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who after consideration of the entire evidence on record held that three cheques bearing No. A-2569398 dated 5.1.2005 amounting to Rs. 45,000/-, Cheque No. A-2569399 dated 10.1.2005 amounting to Rs. 18,000/- and Cheque No. A-2569397 dated 10.1.2005 amounting to Rs. 45,000/- had been issued by the petitioner herein. The respondent had presented these cheques for 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 encashment to the P.N.B. Branch Tal, District Bilaspur on 19.1.2005. They were dishonoured without any reasonable cause. On the evidence on record the two Courts held that these cheques presented for the consideration. However, the same were dishonoured, despite the fact that the petitioner took delivery of three Cosmo Blaster Motorcycles. On re-appreciation of the evidence, the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal. The appellant in these circumstances preferred the present Revision Petition, challenging the judgment and sentence, as imposed by the learned trial Court. Litigants have become habitual in puttingforth frivolous defences which cannot stand the scrutiny of law. I find that this case was instituted in the year 2005 and now more than six years have elapsed without the petitioner in any manner taking any steps to liquidate his liability. 2. On the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, I am not persuaded to hold that the defense as set up in the courts below is substantiated by the evidence of the respondent and the findings arrived at by the learned courts below are perverse. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. I am also of the view that at one point of time, ample opportunity has been granted to the petitioner herein by this Court to settle the matter amicably but nothing has been done in this case. Learned counsel pleads that the sentence imposed is harsh. I cannot accept this as a general proposition. However, In the facts and circumstances of this case, this revision petition is disposed of with direction to the 3 petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- to the respondent to be deposited before the learned trial Court within a period of two months from today failing which, the trial Court is directed to execute the sentence, as imposed. (Dev Darshan Sud) 18th March, 2011 Judge. (kck)