IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,SHIMLA. Criminal Revision No. 86 of 2005. Date of decision: 23.09.2011. _______________________________________________________ Kuldeep Kumar ….. Petitioner. Versus Manpreet Singh & Anr …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. J.S.Rana, Assistant Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, J(Oral) . This revision has been directed against judgment dated 2.5.2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Una in Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2004, reversing judgment dated 30.11.2004 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb in Complaint No.102-1 of 2003. 2. The facts in brief are that petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against respondent regarding cheque No.419493 dated 1.1.2003 amounting to `10,000/-. The further case of the petitioner is that on presentation of the cheque the same was bounced, notice Ex.PW-2/A was given to the respondent but he didn’t pay the amount, hence complaint was filed. __________________________ Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 3. The respondent was summoned and the notice of accusation was put to the respondent. The petitioner examined two witnesses. The statement of Manpreet Singh respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The respondent led defence evidence. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted and sentenced the respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, on 30.11.2004 In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge on 2.5.2005 while accepting the appeal, set aside the judgment dated 30.11.2004 and acquitted the respondent, hence revision. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has taken very technical view in acquitting the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact the respondent had issued cheque No.419443 dated 10.1.2003 Ex.PW-1/B amounting to `10,000/-. This has been proved on record. However, inadvertently in the complaint cheque No.419493 dated 10.1.2003 amounting to ` 10,000/- has been stated. This is only typing mistake. The learned Sessions Judge has erred in not appreciating the true, correct import of the complaint and evidence led. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate had rightly appreciated the material in convicting and sentencing the respondent. He has prayed for setting aside impugned judgment and restoring the conviction and sentence passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner in the complaint, in the affidavit filed by way of evidence has given cheque No.419493. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the cheque No.419493 dated 10.1.2003 was put to the respondent. It has also been submitted that even in the notice of accusation cheque No.419493 dated 10.1.2003 was put to the respondent. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the material on record. In revision the evidence cannot be re- appreciated. He has prayed for dismissal of the revision. 6. The controversy involved in the revision is very short. In complaint, the petitioner has stated that the respondent had issued cheque No.419493 dated 10.1.2003 for ` 10,000/- . In the evidence by way of affidavit the petitioner has again stated that respondent had issued cheque No.419493 dated 10.1.2003 amounting to ` 10,000/- The notice of accusation was put to petitioner on 15.3.2004 and in the notice of accusation also cheque No.419493 dated 10.1.2003 for ` 10,000/- has been stated. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. again cheque No.419493 dated 10.1.2003 Ex.PW-1/B has been stated. Thus, at every material stage of the prosecution the case was put to respondent that he issued cheque No.419493 dated 10.1.2003. On the basis of this evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has committed no error in recording finding that there is nothing on record to suggest that cheque No.419493 dated 10.1.2003 was ever issued by respondent in favour of petitioner. The complaint was filed on the basis of cheque No.419493 dated 10.1.2003 whereas the contention has been raised that in fact the petitioner has issued cheque No.419443. This was never the case of the petitioner in the trial Court. It is not a case of just typing mistake of cheque number in the complaint, rather the full trial proceeded on the assumption that the respondent had issued cheque No.419493 dated 10.1.2003 which in fact was never issued by the respondent. Thus, taken from any angle no fault can be found with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge in accepting the appeal and setting aside the judgment dated 30.11.2004. In revision the evidence can not be re- appreciated. It cannot be said that the view taken by learned Sessions Judge is perverse or it does not emerge from the evidence on record. 7. In view of above discussion, the revision petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. September 23, 2011 (Kuldip Singh), (sks) Judge.