IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.45 of 2010. Date of decision: 3.8.2010. Asha Sharma … … Petitioner Versus Gift Zone & Another … …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.S.D. Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr.Bhupinder Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No.2: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner herein against the judgment and sentence of the two Courts below convicting her for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 2. The petitioner has challenged the judgment on a number of grounds. Adverting to the facts of the case, a complaint was instituted against the petitioner that a cheque amounting to Rs.10,000/- was issued to the complainant which on its presentation was dishonoured. The learned Court on the evidence on record convicted the petitioner and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and further 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 compensation for a sum of Rs.12,000/- to the complainant. 3. Appeal has been dismissed by the learned appellate Court, which while analyzing the evidence, holds that the offence stands established. The Court also notices that it tried to compromise the matter, but no compromise was arrived at and in view of this amongst other facts the appeal was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged a number of grounds in support of its contention that the petitioner is innocent of the offences and the Courts below have committed an error in convicting her. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment of both the Courts below. I do not find any perversity in the appreciation of evidence by the Courts below. 6. When this petition was pending in this Court, an effort was made to have the matter settled amicably, especially considering that the amount was meager and the petitioner was a lady. However, no result could be arrived at. I find no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed with this modification that being a lady the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon her is set aside. August 3, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.