IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision 82 of 2011 Date of Decision 30th May ,2011 ________________________________________________________ Bhola Ram ….Petitioner. Versus Tara Chand Ghai ….Respondent. ________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. K.R. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. N.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. ______________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act whereby he has been sentenced for three months’ simple imprisonment and to pay a compensation amounting to ` 70,000/- with fine of ` 5000/- and in default of the payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The case of the complainant was that he and the accused were known to each other and they were on visiting terms. The petitioner was constructing a house in his village for 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 which purpose he required money and a sum of ` 60,000/- was accordingly lent to him on 7.12.2005. In order to repay this debt, the petitioner herein issued cheque No. 508505 dated 8.6.2006 for ` 60,000/- from his account No. SF3112, payable on the Himachal Gramin Bank Gadsa Branch. When this cheque was presented for encashment on 6.11.2006, it was dishonoured with the remarks “insufficient amount” in the account of the petitioner. The defence as usual under Section 138 of the Act was one that the cheque has been issued as a security. 3. On the evidence on record, including that of the petitioner, the learned trial Court held that the cheque was issued for valuable consideration and the defence as set up by the petitioner herein was not established. In these circumstances, the petitioner was convicted for the offence. 4. Appeal preferred by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge was dismissed after reappreciation of the entire evidence and consideration of the submissions made before him by the petitioner herein. The Court on the evidence on record confirmed the conviction and affirmed the sentence. 5. Revision against this order has now been preferred by this petitioner challenging the legality of conviction on a number of grounds. I do not find any merit in this revision petition as the points which have been urged before the learned trial Court were also retreiated before the learned Appellate Court and rejected and are now sought for adjudication before this Court. As a revisional, it is not open for me to re-assess the entire evidence unless there is any perversity/illegality in the appreciation of evidence on record or of conclusions on the 3 records. I do not find any such perversity. The reason as to why the cheque was given as a security is not explained. It is very usual that in cases of dishonour of cheque, false defence is adopted and this Court has been flooded with frivolous litigation of such nature. I find from this case that the cheque was issued in the year 2006 and the petitioner herein has utilised the money without payment of any interest. This case is pending in Courts for the last five years. 6. Adverting to the sentence, it would be appropriate in case the sentence of imprisonment is set aside subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay a sum of ` 80,000/- to the respondent within a period of three months from today. This amount shall be deposited with the learned trial Court within the period allowed. The fine of ` 5000/- as imposed by the learned trial Court shall remain intact. Learned counsel submits that this amount has been deposited before the trial Court on 19.3.2010 vide receipt No. 0075952. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that out of ` 80,000/- part of the amount has been deposited by the petitioner herein before the learned trial Court on 19th March, 2010. In these circumstances, a direction is issued that remaining amount shall be deposited with the learned trial Court by the petitioner within the time allowed. On such deposit being made, the amount shall be released to the respondent forthwith. It is clarified that in case of non-deposit, the sentence of imprisonment shall revive and the petitioner shall be liable to serve out the entire sentence as directed by the learned trial Court. The petition stands disposed of. This judgment shall not 4 be construed as a precedent in any other case. Dasti copy on usual terms. May 30th, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge 5