IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 122 of 2011. Date of Decision : 20.07.2011 Surinder Singh …..Petitioner. Versus. Hem Raj and another ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner : Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Ms. Shubh Mahjan, Dy. A.G. for respondent No.2. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The petitioner is aggrieved by his conviction under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instrument Act by two Courts below. Before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajgarh he was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that petitioner herein issued a cheque for consideration in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- which was dishonoured on presentation. In appeal, learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan set aside the sentence of imprisonment of three months and ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 2 lacs in stead of cheque amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. In other words, he was directed to pay a sum of Rs.2 lacs as compensation to the complainant/respondent. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?. Yes. 2 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has urged number of points in support of her contentions that the offence is not establish on the evidence on record and sentence is excessive. She also places reliance upon the decision in Sukhwant Singh versus State of Punjab, AIR 1995 SC 1601 . What I find from the facts of this case are that the law is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 4. Adverting to the first contention, I do not find that the learned Sessions Judge, has committed any illegality in imposing fine amount of Rs.2 lacs for the reasons that the principal amount was Rs.1,50,000/- and learned Sessions Judge awarded Rs.2 lacs as compensation which is reasonable from any angle. The cheque was issued in the year 2005 and the principal amount would be earning interest had it been invested by the respondent in a nationalized bank. 5. On the other aspect, what I find on the evidence on record is that the sentence imposed for the guilt of the petitioner herein is not excessive and the findings of the Court below do not warrant any interference. This revision petition is rejected. However, it is directed that the amount of Rs.2 lacs shall be deposited within a period of six months from today and on making such deposit the amount shall be disbursed to the complainant. In case of failure of deposit of amount, the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court shall revive and the same shall be duly and faithfully executed by the learned Trial Court. Copy dasti. ( Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. 20th July, 2011. (jai)