IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.Revision No.104 of 2011. Date of decision: 22.06.2011 Nihal Chand … …Petitioner Versus Budh Ram … …Respondent 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 the Respondent: None. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner herein who was convicted by both the Courts for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, tried the petitioner herein on the complaint instituted by the respondent that the petitioner herein had issued a cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- for the amount borrowed from him. Cheque, bearing No.402137, dated 20.08.2006 for Rs.1,50,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Dhalpur Branch, when presented by the respondent-complainant for encashment, was dishonoured without reasonable 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 cause. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner claimed innocence. 3. On the evidence on record of CW-1, Bodh Ram complainant, the Court holds that there is nothing in the cross-examination nor a suggestion was put to him that the cheque was not received for discharge of pre- existing liability. On the question of limitation, the Court held that the complaint had been filed in time. It accordingly proceeded to sentence the accused for simple imprisonment for six months and compensation to the extent of Rs.three lacs to be paid by the petitioner herein. 4. The decision was challenged in appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu. On re-appreciation of evidence, the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal, however, modified the sentence by awarding compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- and did not interfere in the sentence of imprisonment. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have gone through the judgment of the two Courts below. 6. A question of limitation has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, but I do not find such fact having been established on the record before the two Courts below. In fact, the learned trial Court had gone in detail of the entire evidence and in these circumstances, I do not find any 3 perversity in the conclusion or in the findings of the Courts below. 7. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. However, on fervent plea having been made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the sentence of imprisonment is set aside. The compensation awarded by the learned appellate Court shall be deposited by him before the learned trial Court within a period of four months from today, failing which the sentence of imprisonment shall revive. The amount, so deposited, shall be paid to the respondent herein. June 22, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.