Cr. Revision No. 21 of 2010 6.10.2010 Present: Mr. M.S. Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Himanshu Panwar, Advocate, for the respondent. Cr. Revision No. 21 of 2010 The petitioner is aggrieved by the sentence imposed upon him by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, (II), Shimla under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act directing him to pay compensation of Rs. 60,000/- and to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. These findings have been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. Before the learned Appellate Court a categoric statement was made by the petitioner accepting the liability to pay the amount. The petitioner is now in revision and urges a number of grounds on the legality of the findings of the Courts below. I have gone through the judgment as also the statement made by the petitioner before the learned Appellate Court unequivocally accepting the liability. In these circumstances, there is no merit in this revision, which is accordingly dismissed. On the question of sentencing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urges that sentence of imprisonment be set aside as the petitioner is ready to pay the compensation amounting to Rs. 60,000/- to the respondent within a period of eight weeks from today. This prayer is not opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. In these circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment, as imposed upon the petitioner by the learned trial Court, is set aside subject to the condition that he shall deposit Rs. 60,000/- before the learned trial Court within a period of eight weeks from today. On such deposit being made, the amount shall be released to the respondent. It is clarified that in case of non-deposit of the amount within the stipulated period, the sentence of imprisonment shall revive. Petition stands disposed of. October 06, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge