IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 72 of 2007 Mani Ram …………..Revisionist. Vs State of Uttarakhand and another. ……………..Respondents. Present : None appears on behalf of the revisionist. Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no.1. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for respondent no. 2. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. List revised. Case called out twice. None appears for the revisionist. Sri Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand appears for respondent no. 1 and Sri Parikshit Saini, Advocate appears on behalf of respondent no. 2. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist challenging the orders of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court dated 4.3.2006 and 12.12.2006 respectively, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (from hereinafter referred to as the Act) and subsequently vide an order dated 12.12.2006 his appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2006 Mani Ram Vs. Rajya Sarkar and another before the appellate Court has been dismissed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.5.2004, a cheque bearing No. 050599 amounting to Rs. 75,000/- (Seventy Five Thousand) of Central Bank of India, Haridwar was drawn by the revisionist and given to respondent no. 2. Thus an amount of Rs. 75,000/- (Seventy Five Thousand) was to be given to respondent no. 2 as a return of the loan, which the revisionist had taken from respondent no. 2. Both the revisionist and respondent no. 2 are working in B.H.E.L and are also neighbours, hence they know each other. The accused, who is the revisionist before this Court admitted that he has signed the cheque dated 11.5.2004. He also admitted that Bank Account Bearing No. 12588 is in his name. The defence taken by him, all the same, is that two Cheques bearing No. 050599 dated 050600 were lost by him and this was duly 2 informed by him to the police. However, this defence of the revisionist has not been accepted by both the Courts below for two reasons and in the considered view of this Court rightly so. The defence has not been believed inasmuch as the accused could not show any evidence or proof to the Court that the factum of the loss of cheque was duly reported to the police or to the Bank. If a cheque was lost, as was the defence taken by the accused, he should have promptly reported this to the Bank. This has not been done is further evident of the fact that the cheque was not dishonoured on account of stoppage of payment or any instructions of the drawer but simply for “insufficiency of funds”. The trial Court, therefore, has rightly proceeded against the revisionist/accused and has rightly convicted and sentenced him under Section 138 of the Act. This Court finds no anomaly whatsoever in the order of the trial Court. For the same reasons, there is no infirmity in the order of the appellate Court as well. There is no good ground for interference by this Court under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. The instant criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 4. No order as to costs. 5. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Court concerned for necessary compliance. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 9.9.2010 Rathour