IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision 253 of 2010 Date of Decision 22nd June ,2011 ________________________________________________________ Yash Pal Soni ….Petitioner. Versus Kishore Kumar & another ….Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. ________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Malay Kaushal, Advocate. 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 by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hamirpur. The conviction and sentence have been, later on affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur. The case against the petitioner is that he issued a cheque bearing No. 320550 for a sum of ` 80,000/-. The case pleaded was that he had purchased ornaments from the complainant. On presentation of this cheque, it was dishonoured. 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 The case set out by the petitioner was that he was innocent, but he did not lead any evidence in defence . 2. After considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Court held that the cheque was issued for valuable consideration and was dishonoured without any reasonable/legal cause. The learned trial Court accordingly sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of ` 80,000/- which was to be paid to the complainant as compensation. These findings have been re-affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. 3. I have gone through the judgments of both the Courts below. The grounds as urged in this petition were also urged before the learned trial Court. I do not find any illegality/perversity in the appreciation of evidence or conclusion arrived at. I find no merit in this petition and therefore it is rejected. 4. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment is set aside subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of ` 95,000/- within a period of three months from today, failing which the sentence of imprisonment shall revive and shall be carried out dutyfully by the learned trial Court forthwith. On such deposit being made, the amount shall be paid to the respondent- complainant. Petition stands disposed of. June 22nd 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge 3 4