IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision 55 of 2011 Date of Decision 31st March, 2011 __________________________________________________________ Bhupinder Singh ….Petitioner. Versus Prakash Chand and another ….Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. ___________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. M.L. Brakta, Advocate. For Respondent No.2: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy A.G. __________________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) whereby he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay compensation in the sum of ` 1 lac representing the Negotiable Instrument. This order was passed on 28.4.2008. The cheque which was issued relates to the year 2006. 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2. Feeling aggrieved with the judgment, the petitioner appealed. The learned Appellate Court, on the evidence on record, holds that cheque Ext.CW1/A issued on the UCO Bank, Dharampur which was dishonoured without any reasonable cause. The Court also considered the defence, which was put up before the learned trial Court, that no notice was issued by the complainant before filing the complaint. This was rejected by the learned Appellate Court by holding that notice Ext.CW1/E, postal receipt Ext.CW1/F and acknowledgement Ext.CW1/G amply prove the issuance of notice. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. 3. The petitioner has now challegned this judgment in revision. On the evidence on record, I am unable to persuade myself to hold that findings of the two Courts below are against the facts on record. The stand taken by the petitioner herein that he never issued the cheque cannot be accepted for the simple reason that there are no attending circumstances that any action was taken by him to establish that the cheque was either stolen from him or that it was forged/fabricated. This revision petition is therefore rejected. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the sentence imposed by the Courts below is unduly harsh. This submission also cannot be accepted. What I find from the record is that after a period of five years, the petitioner now complains about the legality of sentence after having utilised the money. The learned trial Court has only granted compensation equivalent to the amount of cheque which was dishonoured. However, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I direct that sentence of 3 imprisonment as imposed will not be executed subject to the petitioner herein paying a sum of ` 1,25,000/- to the respondent within a period of two months from today. It is further directed that in case of non-payment of this amount, the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court shall revive and shall be duly and faithfully executed by that Court. Petition stands disposed of. March 31st, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge 4