DULE RAM Vs. MAYADHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant revision petition filed under Section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenge has been laid to judgment dated 24.10.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, HP in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2017, affirming the judgment/order of conviction dated 10.11.2016/11.11.2016 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in Complaint No. 89-I/2012/1204-I/2013 (old) 290-I/2016/290-III/2016(new), whereby learned trial Court, while holding the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,70,000/- to the complainant.

(2.) Necessary facts, as emerge from the record are that respondent-complainant (hereinafter, 'complainant') filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act ibid in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, alleging therein that on 25.1.2011, accused purchased 10,000 apple saplings (nursery plants) for Rs. 25/- per plant, total amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/- and also borrowed Rs. 20,000/-. Accused assured that payment shall be made within a period of 4-5 months, however, facts remains that accused issued cheque qua aforesaid amount but same was dishonoured on its presentation to the bank concerned. Since accused despite having received legal notice issued by complainant, failed to make payment within the stipulated time, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, held accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused as per description given herein-above.

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court, accused preferred an appeal under section 374 CrPC, 1973 in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, which was also dismissed, consequently, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking acquittal after setting aside judgment of conviction recorded by court below.