IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.102 of 2011 Date of decision : June 17, 2011 Dina Nath Sharma …Petitioner. Versus Ashok Kumar sharma and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. G.R. Palsara, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, and Ms Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.2. None for respondent No.1. Dev Darshan Sud, Judge(Oral) The petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the two Courts below. The case set out by the complainant was that the cheque (Ex. C-1) dated 31st December, 2007, drawn on UCO Bank, Mandi Branch, from his Savings Bank Account No.77721, for an amount of `60,000/-, was issued in favour of the complainant-respondent No.1 herein. On presentation, this cheque was returned by the bankers of the petitioner with the remarks “insufficient funds”. The complaint was instituted by the petitioner, praying that the petitioner be punished in accordance with law for dishonour of the cheque, which was for a valuable consideration. The defence set out by the accused-petitioner herein was (a) Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. …2… that no notice, as envisaged and which was mandatory under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was ever issued to the petitioner and (b) that the cheque had been issued as security and not for a valuable consideration. 2. The learned trial Court on the evidence on record, held that registered letter Ex. C-8 itself proved the fact of service as it was addressed to the respondent on his address which is also the address in the complaint on which he was served in the trial Court. The learned trial Court did not find any evidence to hold that the cheque in question was manipulated or was issued as security for some transactions between the parties. 3. The petitioner appealed to the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned appellate Court reappreciated the evidence and on the principles of law applicable, held that the cheque in question had been issued as valuable security and rejected the contention of the petitioner herein that the negotiable instrument had been manipulated and/or did not represent the liability of the petitioner towards the claimant-respondent. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a compensation of `70,000/-. The learned trial Court also observed that the menace of offences relating to negotiable instruments, as in this case, has attained alarming proportions, which has to be …3… curbed with a heavy hand and, therefore, some deterrent punishment is required to be awarded to the drawers for dragging holders to Courts in interminable litigation. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the records. 5. The conclusion on facts as arrived at by the Courts below cannot be faulted. I do not find any perversity in the appreciation of the evidence or on the conclusions which have been arrived at. The reasoning of the learned trial Court, as affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which supports the conclusion on the basis of the established law, cannot be faulted with. The same arguments which were addressed before the Courts below have been addressed before me. I find no valid reason to interfere with the judgments of the two Courts below. This revision petition is, therefore, rejected. I also do not find any reason to interfere with the observation of the learned Court that the menace of offence of negotiable instruments has attained alarming proportions and the same are required to be curbed with deterrent punishments. However, taking into consideration the facts and the circumstances of the case, sentence of imprisonment is set a aside, subject to the condition that the petitioner herein shall deposit a sum of `85,000/- in the learned trial Court, within a period of three months from today, failing which the sentence of …4… imprisonment shall revive and shall be duly and faithfully executed by the learned trial Court. On such deposit being made, the amount shall be disbursed to the claimant-respondent. The petition stands disposed of. Miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of. Copy dasti. ( Dev Darshan Sud ), June 17, 2011(sd) Judge.