IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision 66 of 2011 Date of Decision 27th May ,2011 ________________________________________________________ Jawala Dass ….Petitioner. Versus Tirth Ram and another ….Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. ________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. N.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr. Rajesh Kahol, Advocate. For Respondent No.2: Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy A.G. ______________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral) Cr.MP(M) 270 of 2011 Heard. For the reasons as stated in this application, I am satisfied that delay in filing this petition is bonafide. This application is allowed and delay in instituting the revision petition is condoned in the interest of justice. Cr. Revision No. 66 of 2011 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and sentence imposed by the learned trial Magistrate convicting him for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The allegation against the petitioner was that he had issued a cheque for ` 65,000/- for valuable consideration, which was dishonoured on presentation. On the facts as also evidence on the record, the Court proceeded to convict the petitioner herein and imposed a fine of ` 80,000/- out of which ` 75,000/- was awarded as compensation to the complainant and ` 5,000/- as fine to be paid to the State. 3. The petitioner appealed. But on re-appraisal of the entire evidence, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal by upholding the conviction and sentence as imposed by the learned trial Court. 4. It is urged by the petitioner that the cheque was issued as security in favour of Durga, who obtained a loan from the complainant and then another plea taken by the petitioner is that no notice in this case was served upon him. So far as the question of notice is concerned, he could not take this plea any further. In C.C. Alavi Haji vs. Palapetty Muhammed and another (2007) 6 SCC 555 the Supreme Court has held in clear terms that even where the grievance of the drawer is that no notice has been served upon him, he has 15 days time to make the amount good after the receipt of summons from the Court. This course has not been adopted/followed by the petitioner herein. No grievance can be made on this count. 5. On the second ground, the learned Judge does not find any evidence in support of this contention. Both the Courts 3 having concurrently found against the petitioner, I do not find that this is a fit case in which this Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction more especially when I do not find any error of jurisdiction or perversity in appreciation of evidence. 6. On the question of sentence, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already undergone one month’s imprisonment as he was taken into custody on 17th April, 2011. In these circumstances, I modify the sentence as imposed by the learned trial Court and direct that the period of detention already undergone by him be treated as a sentence imposed. I further direct that the petitioner shall pay a sum of ` 80,000/-, as directed by the learned trial Court, and this amount be apportioned, as directed, within a period of four months from today. On deposit of this amount with the learned trial Court, ` 75,000/- be paid to the respondent. It is clarified that in case of non-deposit, the sentence as imposed by the learned trial Court shall revive and the petitioner shall undergo the remaining sentence of imprisonment as imposed by the learned trial Court. The petitioner shall be released from the prison forthwith in case he is not required in any other case. Registry is directed to take follow up action forthwith. Dasti copy on usual terms. May 27th, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge 4