IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.Revision No. 133 of 2011 Date of Decision 26th July ,2011 ________________________________________________________ Tek Chand ….Petitioner. Versus Nand Lal and another ….Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Mohan Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: None. For Respondent No.2: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy A.G. __________________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentence to pay compensation of ` 1,70,000/- and one year simple imprisonment. The learned trial Magistrate has also imposed a fine of ` 5000/- which was set aside by the learned Appellate Court. 2, On the facts on record, the learned trial Court found that the petitioner herein had issued two cheques one for ` 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 50,000/- and second for ` 1 lac to the complainant, which cheques were dishonoured on presentation. The defence set up by the petitioner herein that cheques were blank and they have been misused by the complainant was rejected on the evidence on record. These findings have been re-affirmed in appeal by the leanred Additional Sessions Judge, who has dealt with the evidence on each and every point so urged. 3. The petitioner now challenges the judgments and conviction on the ground that both the Courts below were wrong in assessing the evidence and that conclusions arrived at by them are perverse. 4. I have perused the judgments of both the Courts below but I cannot convince myself to hold that there is any perversity which is manifest in the reasoning or in the assessment of evidence. I also cannot persuade myself to hold that the conclusions arrived at on the evidence on record are such that can be described as totally bereft of evidence. Thus, there is no merit in this revision petition. 5. On the aspect of sentencing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the sentence as imposed is excessively harsh and that sentence of imprisonment requires to be set aside. 6. More often than once, I have observed that the Courts have become crowded with cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act where litigants indulge in speculative litigation. They gamble and wait for a chance before the learned trial Court as also the Appellate Court and then finally invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under 3 Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. The criminal justice system cannot be allowed to be manipulated in this manner. It would be better if these cases are settled at the trial stage rather than speculate on the final results and gamble further in appeal. 7. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I set aisde the sentence of imprisonment subject to the petitioner herein to deposit a sum of ` 2 lacs before the learned trial Court within a period of five months from today, failing which the sentence of imprisonment shall revive and duly and faithfully execute by the learned trial Court. On such deposit being made, the amount shall be paid to the complainant. Petition stands disposed of. Dasti copy on usual terms. July 26th, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge