1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.Revision No. 120 of 2011 Date of Decision 26th July ,2011 ________________________________________________________ Roshan Lal ….Petitioner. Versus Roop Singh ….Respondent. ________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. ___________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. D.S. Nainta, Advocate. For Respondent : None. __________________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral) The petitioner was convicted for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act by the learned trial Court, which judgment of conviction and setence was affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. The Courts below, on the evidence on record, held that the petitioner herein had issued a cheque in the sum of Rs.60,000/- to discharge his existing liability. Cheque Ex.P1 presented to the bank was dishonoured without reasonable cause. The defence of the petitioner that no 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 amount was due, was rejected. These findings were affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the judgments of both the Courts below. I do not find that there is any perversity either in the conclusion arrived at or in the assessment of evidence on record. In these circumstances, there is no merit in this revision petition which is accordingly rejected. 3. On the other apsect of sentence imposed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the payment of Rs. 60,000/- representing the cheque had already been made to the respondent and sentence of imprisonment is harsh. 4. I am not in agreement with this contention of the learned counsel as the petitioner indulges in speculative litigation and gambles to see the result before the trial Court and the Appellate Court. At this stage, it is not open to the petitioner to pray for leniency on the ground that he has complied with the judgment by paying the amount adjudged. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I set aside the sentence of imprisonment subject to the petitioner herein depositing a sum of ` 80,000/- before the learned trial Court. The amount, if any, already deposited shall be adjusted/deducted from this amount. The amount shall be deposited within four weeks from today, failing which the sentence of imprisonment shall revive and the same shall be duly and faithfully executed by the learned trial Court. On such 3 deposit being made, the amount shall be paid to the respondent/complainant. Petition stands disposed of. Dasti copy on usual terms. July 26th, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), (jai) Judge