1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 154 of 2008. Reserved on : 2-12-2008. Date of Decision: 11 .12.2008. ____________________________________________________________ Jugal Kishore. Petitioner. Versus Kalyan Singh. Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner : Mr. Vijender Katoch vice Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J The petitioner herein was summoned as an accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the notice of accusation was put to him on 2.7.2008 which has been challenged in the present criminal revision petition on the ground that the accused-petitioner had entered into an agreement with the respondent for purchasing the truck worth rupees 3, 60,000/- and each of the partners contributed rupees 1,20,000/- on 16-2- 1996 for running the truck. It was agreed inter-se parties that a cheque of rupees 1, 87,000/- issued by the petitioner shall be kept as a security which was half of the consideration amount so that the parties could abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement. It is alleged that the cheque was mis-used by the respondent and proceedings against him under the aforesaid Section are not maintainable. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?Yes. 2 The aforesaid averments are neither in the complaint nor it surfaced in the preliminary evidence of the complainant. The cheque which is alleged to have been issued by the petitioner is dated 25.2.2008 which bounced back with the endorsement “exceeds arrangement”. After the statutory notice it was not paid. At the time of charge/accusation under Section 251, Cr.P.C. the sifting of the evidence is impermissible nor there is any provision in a summons case like 245 (2) Cr.P.C. to look into the ultimate defence of the accused raised at any time of the proceedings. Precisely, in the present petition, these allegations cannot be gone into. Therefore, notice of accusation against the petitioner is legally sustainable which requires no interference. As such, the petition is dismissed. The record of the trial Court be returned and the parties are hereby directed to be present before the learned trial Court on 30.12.2008. The petition is accordingly disposed of. (Surinder Singh) Judge. December 11, 2008. (bm)