MANOHAR SINGH Vs. SHIV DEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Cr. Revision petition filed under S.397 Crimial P.C. is directed against judgment dated 28.2.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, HP in Cr. Appeal No. 38-S/10 of 2016, affirming the judgment/order of conviction dated 9/15.10.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (3), Shimla, HP, in Complaint No. 188-3 of 2015/12 titled Shiv Dev Singh versus Manohar singh, whereby learned Court below, while holding petitioner-accused (hereinafter, 'accused') guilty of having committed offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter, 'Act'), convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation of Rs.1,20,000.00.

(2.) Facts, as emerges from the record are that the respondent-complainant (hereinafter, 'complainant') filed a complaint under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter, 'Act') in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (3), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, averring therein that the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, 'accused') intended to sell some land owned by him but since he was in need of money, complainant agreed to purchase the land, description whereof is given in the judgment passed by the learned Courts below, for a total sale consideration of Rs.8,40,000.00 and paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 to the accused, as advance money on 11.8.2010. Accused promised to clear the loan amount within a period of six months and agreed to execute sale deed within a period of six months from the date of agreement. However, the fact remains that the accused did not contact the complainant in order to execute the sale deed within the period of six months. After expiry of six months, accused handed over a cheque bearing No. 218497 amounting to Rs.1,10,000.00 in favour of the complainant. However, fact remains that the aforesaid cheque, on presentation, was dishonoured on account of "insufficient funds". Complainant, after having received memo from the concerned Bank, served the accused with the legal notice calling upon him to make the payment within the stipulated period, but, since accused failed to make payment, within the stipulated period, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under S.138 of the Act against the accused, in the competent Court of law.

(3.) Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (3), Shimla, vide judgment/order dated 9/15.10.2015, held accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under S.138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as per description given hereinabove. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment /order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court, accused preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, However, the fact remains that the same was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 28.2.2018, as a consequence of which, judgment/order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, accused approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after setting aside the judgments/order of conviction passed by the learned Courts below.