NARESH KUMAR Vs. TRILOK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Criminal Revision petition filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment, dtd. 28/9/2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge(II), Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 23-R/10 of 2018, affirming the judgment of conviction dtd. 1/10/2018 and order of sentence dtd. 25/10/2018, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., in Criminal case No.116-3 of 2016, titled as Trilok Chand versus Sh. Naresh Kumar, whereby learned trial Court while holding petitioner-accused guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,20,000.00 to the complainant.

(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent-complainant (for short 'complainant') filed a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'Act') in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rohru, District Shimla,H.P., alleging therein that on 10/8/2016, he lent sum of Rs.80,000.00 to the accused, who with a view to discharge his liability, issued cheque No.283466, dtd. 25/8/2016 (Ex.CW1/B), amounting to Rs.80,000.00 in his favour drawn at UCO Bank, Jubbal, District Shimla. However, fact remains that aforesaid cheque on its presentation was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the account of the accused vide memo dtd. 17/11/2016 Ex. CW1/C. Since, despite having received notice, accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Sec. 138 of the Act, in the competent court of law.

(3.) Learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, held accused guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Act, and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as per the description given hereinabove.