IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 44 of 2011 Date of Decision 11th May ,2011 ________________________________________________________ Naresh Kumar ….Petitioner. Versus M/s Trading Company ….Respondent. ________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No ________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Ms. Anu Tuli, Advocate. For the Respondent: None. ______________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral) Cr.MP(M) No. 186 of 2011 Heard. For the reasons stated in this application, I am satisfied that delay in filing this revision petition is bonafide. This application is accordingly allowed and delay in instituing the revision petition is condoned in the interest of justice. Cr. Revision No. 44 of 2011 I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and gone through the judgment of the two Courts 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 below. The petitioner herein has been sentenced by the learned trial Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act on the proved allegations that the cheque amounting to ` 2 lacs was issued by him which was dishonoured. A sum of ` 2,20,000/- was awarded by the learned trial Court as compensation. Simple imprisonment for three months was also imposed. 3. In appeal preferred before the learned Appellate Court, the entire evidence was re-appreciated, but it did not accept the contention of the appellant-accused as also the defence taken by the petitioner against the allegations as made in the complaint. 4. I have gone through the judgments of both the Courts below. I do not find that they suffer from any perversity in conclusion or appreciation of evidence which necessitate interference by this Court under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. 5. On the fervent plea of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the question of sentencing, I direct that in case a sum of ` 2,30,000/- in all is deposited before the learned trial Court within a period of two months from today, the sentence of imprisonment as imposed by the learned trial Court is set aside. The amount, which already stands paid, shall be deducted from the amount so directed to be paid by this Court. On deposit of such amount, this amount shall be disbursed to the respondent. In case of non-deposit, the sentence of imprisonment shall revive 3 and shall be carried out dutifully by the learned trial Court forthwith. Dasti copy on usual terms. May 11th , 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge 4