IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.2 of 2010. Date of decision: 08.09.2010. Chander Kant … …Petitioner Versus Mahindra & Mahindra Financial … …Respondents Services Ltd. and Another Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.Anoop Chitkara, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr.Vineet Guleria, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla. 2. The petitioner herein was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and a fine of Rs.66,900/- for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the respondent, which is a Non-Banking Financial Company, was approached by the petitioner for financial assistance for buying a Mahindra Max. The loan agreement provides that the petitioner was to pay the loan amount in 48 monthly installments. The allegations are that the petitioner issued cheque bearing No.500821 for Rs.65,900/-, dated 5.7.2007 drawn on State Bank of India, Dharech Branch, towards liquidation of this liability. This cheque was sent for collection by the respondents to the bankers, but was returned with the memo dated 17.7.2007 with the remarks that it cannot be en-cashed because of lack of funds. Notices of the Act were sent and evidence recorded. CW-1 Vivek Guleria, Law Officer of the complainant- Company, proved on record the notice and the fact that the petitioner failed to make any payment of the amount due under the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. The learned appellate Court notes that in the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has admitted his liability to make the payment. It was also admitted that loan in fact had been raised by him and that the cheque Ex.CW- 1/A bears his signatures. In fact, the defence seems to be that the vehicle was forcibly seized by the respondent-Finance Company for which purpose First Information Report was lodged by him and therefore, it could not be said that any amount was due and 3 outstanding. This First Information Report was not proved on the record. Therefore, the Court has drawn an adverse inference against him. In the background of these facts, I cannot accept the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that blank cheques were issued and that they were subsequently interpolated and there were evidence on record. There is nothing on record to show that there is some kind of civil dispute regarding which the case is pending etc. I do not find any error or perversity in the judgment of the Courts below calling for interference by this Court. 5. I have gone through the judgments of both the Courts below. I cannot persuade myself to hold that there is any perversity or illegality in the findings arrived at by the Courts below. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. September 8, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.