IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Rev. No. 95 of 2011. Date of Decision: 15.6.2011. _______________________________________________ Harish Kumar Sharma. ….Petitioner. Versus. Ram Lal Gupta and another. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? For the petitioner :Mr.I.D.Bhardwaj, Advocate. For Respondent-2. :Mr. P.K.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and sentence of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Karsog, convicting the petitioner for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.5,000/-. The cheque dishonoured was for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. The learned trial court on the evidence before it and especially the defence set out by the petitioner that he had only borrowed a sum of Rs.80,000/-, Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment. 2 rejected the stand of the petitioner herein holding that valuable consideration had not passed. 2. The petitioner appealed to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi. The learned appellate Court rejected the submissions made by the petitioner herein on merits that he had not committed any act justifying the invocation of Section 138 of the Act as aforesaid. However, on the question of sentencing, it was modified to the extent that the petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment instead of rigorous imprisonment. The appeal was dismissed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records. 4. The points urged in this revision petition have been considered on the factual matrix by both the courts below. One of the defences urged before me was that the cheque did not represent any valuable consideration but was given as security for some transactions between the parties. The defence was that the cheque was blank and later on interpolated by the respondent. 5. I find this submission difficult to accept for the reason that the cheque was issued in the year 2006. If the cheque had been manipulated/forged, the first thing which any normal person would have done was: (a) reported the matter to the police (b) instituted civil proceedings against the respondent for manipulating and forging valuable security in order to hold the respondent liable for an act which has been committed. Both the courts below having concurrently against the petitioner herein, I do not find any perversity in the appreciation of 3 evidence or on the conclusions which have been arrived at. There is thus, no merit in this revision petition which is accordingly rejected. 6. On the question of sentencing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a young man and the only bread earner of his family. He should and ought to be granted the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. I am not inclined to accept this submission at this stage. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- before the learned trial Court within a period of three months from today. In addition, the petitioner shall be liable to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- as directed. On such deposit being made, the amount shall be disbursed to the complainant. In these circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment is set aside. It is however clarified that in case of non deposit of the amount within the stipulated period, the sentence of imprisonment shall revive and the trial Court shall faithfully and duly execute the sentence. The petition is disposed of. All miscellaneous applications are also disposed of. Copy dasti. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. June 15, 2011(R)