IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Rev. No.58 of 2011. Date of Decision:7.4.2011. _______________________________________________ Bhup Singh ….Petitioner. Versus. M/s Ram Hari Motors Pvt. Ltd. and another. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1?.No. For the appellants :Mr. G.R.Palsra, 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 challenges his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay compensation to the complainant to the extent of Rs.20,000/-. The facts of the case are that the complainant is the authorized dealer of Bajaj Tempo Limited carrying on its business at Sh.Krishna Nagar, Rani-ki-Bain. The case set out is that the accused purchased a tempo Trax Cargo King Jeep from the complainant and a cheque for Rs.68,996/- was issued. On presentation, this cheque was dishonored. The learned trial Court holds that the cheque bears the signatures of the accused. He has further admitted that he had purchased a Jeep from the complainant Company. However, the Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment.yes. 2 defence set up that he had paid the entire margin money of Rs. 1,05,000/- and that the cheque does not represent this amount. The learned trial Court holds that no evidence has been brought on record to establish that this amount has been paid by him. The cheque Ext.CB dated 20.1.2007 for Rs. 68,996/- has been proved to have been issued by the accused and dishonored by the Bank when it was presented by the complainant to his bank. CW1 Rajesh Soni was the Accountant and handled all the accounts. He is thus familiar with the facts of the case and has proved this fact on the record. The court accordingly proceeded to sentence the accused. Dis-satisfied, the complainant appealed. Learned Fast Track Court, Mandi dismissed the appeal after re-appreciating the entire evidence. The appellate Court holds that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the witnesses and that the defence set up by the accused is not established on the record, therefore, proceeded to dismiss the appeal. Hence the present revision petition has been instituted by the petitioner challenging his conviction. A number of points have been urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of his contention that the complaint could not proceed. The first point urged is that respondent No.1-M/s Ram Hari Motors Private Limited had not appeared as a witness and therefore, the complaint could not proceed. He submits that CW1 Rajesh Soni who appeared in the court to support the complaint is not competent to do so on behalf of the Company. This submission is rejected. The courts below have considered the testimony of this witness in detail to hold that he was 3 conversant with the facts of the case and being an Accountant was handling the accounts of the Company. On the question of notice, I need not go in detail into the facts of the case as I find that the two courts below have considered this evidence in detail. The third point raised is that a blank cheque was obtained from the petitioner as security which was later on interpolated with and does not represent the amount of consideration as filled in there. If that be so, I do not find from the evidence on record that any complaint / civil suit has been filed by the complainant alleging such misuse. It is trite to observe that if a negotiable instrument is interpolated with/forged it gives rise not only to civil liability but serious consequence in criminal law would ensue. I do not find that the conclusion arrived at by the courts below are perverse or in any manner against the facts on record. There is, thus, no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. Learned counsel then urges that the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court is unduly harsh. What I find from the present case is that the cheque in question was issued on 20.1.2007. A period of more than four years has passed and the petitioner has been fighting with the respondents on grounds which are otherwise untenable and unsubstantiated. In these circumstances, the question which would arise as to what should be the sentence to be imposed upon such a person. The time gap itself suggests that for four years the petitioner has successfully evaded his liability. Surely, the complainant cannot be punished for approaching the court for adjudication of his claim in accordance with law. One and half years 4 were spent in the trial Court and about two and half years before the learned appellate Court. In these circumstances, without treating this case as a precedent I proceed to modify the sentence and hold that the petitioner herein shall deposit a sum of Rs. 80,000/- in the learned trial Court within a period of three months from today. On such deposit being made, this amount shall be paid to the complainant representing the amount of the negotiable instrument as also compensation. The sentence is accordingly modified. It is further directed that in case such amount is not deposited, the petitioner shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence as imposed by the court below. Petition is disposed of. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. April 7, 2011(R)