DIGVIJAY CHANDRA Vs. AMBRISH VIJAY ROHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Looking to the nature of order, I propose to pass, it is not at all necessary to delve into the facts in detail. Suffice it to state that the complainant/respondent instituted a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'Act') against the petitioner on the allegations that the cheque of Rs. 2,00,000.00 handed over by the petitioner to the respondent in order to discharge his liability had been dishonoured. The complaint was decided in favour of the respondent by the learned trial Magistrate and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment of one month and also directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,10,000.00.

(2.) Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Magistrate on 14/31.03.2017, though the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge (F), Shimla, H.P., however, the same came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 01.05.2018, constraining the petitioner to file the instant revision petition.

(3.) Today when the case was taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before me a photocopy of the Bank Draft drawn in favour of JMIC (VII), Shimla for a sum of Rs. 1,57,500.00. It is also not in dispute that earlier to this an amount of Rs.52,500.00 has already been deposited with the trial Court and in addition thereto a sum of Rs.30,000.00 stands deposited with the H. P. State Legal Services Authority, as is evident from Annexure A-1 annexed with the petition.