Judgment Arun Madan, J.-Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant evidence on record. 2. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the complainant-respondent filed a complaint on 4th July, 1994 stating inter alia that the accused-petitioner took a loan of Rs. 1.35 lacs for promoting his business from the complainant on 12th February, 1994. The said amount was returned by way of two cheques of Rs. 75,000/-dated 23-5-94 and Rs. 60,000/-dated 28-5-94. When the same were presented to his bankers by the complainant, they were dishonoured with the remark “insufficient amount”. Thereafter a legal notice was served on the accused by the complainant through his Counsel but the accused did not reply. 3. Thereafter, on a complaint being filed, the learned Magistrate after recording the statement of the complainant, as per requirement of Section 200 CrPC took cognizance against the accused for offence under Section 138B of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 on 11th August, 1994. 4. The complainant examined two witnesses namely Jagdish Prasad Garg (PW1) and Dan Singh (PW 2) in support of his case besides himself at the preliminary stage. Relevant documents including the dishonoured cheques were duly exhibited on the record vide Exhibit 1 to 15. Thereafter, the trial Court vide its Judgment order dated 8-10-97 held the petitioner guilty of the offence and convicted and sentenced him to undergo three months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1.00 lac and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for another ten days. It was further directed that the amount of fine if realised be deposited with the Court out of which a sum of Rs. 75,000/-shall be given to the complainant by way of compensation. 5. The aforesaid order of the trial Court was challenged by the petitioner by way of appeal vide Criminal Appeal No. 17/98 before the Additional Sessions Judge, No. 3, Alwar. The appellate Court after examining the relevant evidence available on record upheld the conviction of the petitioner for the offence Under Section 138 ot the Act vide its Judgment /Order dated 18-12-98. Hence this revision petition. 6. Fromthe perusal of the summoned record, I do not find any justification to interfere with the order dated 8-10-97 of the trial Court as well as of the impugned order dated 18-12-98 passed by the learned appellate Court. Hence this revision petition. 6. Fromthe perusal of the summoned record, I do not find any justification to interfere with the order dated 8-10-97 of the trial Court as well as of the impugned order dated 18-12-98 passed by the learned appellate Court. Apart from this learned Counsel for the petitioner has not highlighted any extenuating circumstances which may enable this Court to take contrary view of the matter. No argument has been advanced by the learned Counsel to prove the innocence of the accused while on the contrary, there is ample evidence to justify the culpability of the accused. 7. During the course of hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner has further stated that the accused-petitioner has already undergone a sentence of 3 months simple imprisonment as imposed by the trial Court but he has not been in a position to pay or deposit the fine of Rs. 1.00 lac as directed by the trial Court. 8. The Apex Court in the matter of Modi Cements Ltd. v. Kuchil Kumar Nandi reported in AIR 1998 SC 1057 : 1998 CriLJ1397 wherein the controversy which had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court was as to whether the High Court was justified in directing disposal of the complaint arising out of dishonoured cheque, which were issued by the accused to the complainant and which were subsequently dishonoured when presented to his bankers by the complainant, in exercise of its inherent powers Under Section 482 CrPC The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under at page 1401; of CriLJ:- Section 138 of the Act is a penal provision, wherein if a person draw a cheque on an account maintained by him with the Banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part of any debt or other liability, is returned by the Bank unpaid, on the ground either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence. The distinction between the deeming provision and the presumption is well discernible. 9. The distinction between the deeming provision and the presumption is well discernible. 9. Consequently it was held that once a cheque is issued by the drawer which is dishonoured when presented to his Bankers by the complainant, the presumption under Section 139 of the Act must follow and merely because the drawer issue a notice to the drawee or to the bank for stoppage of payment, will not preclude an action as per requirement of Section 138 of the Act either by the drawee or by the holder of a cheque in due course. 10. The only question which arises for consideration is, as to whether notwithstanding the ingredients of Section 138 of the Act which are fully attracted to this case and also having regard to the fact that the finding of the trial Court, which has held the petitioner guilty of the offence as discussed above and has been confirmed by the appellate Court, whether they call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional powers Under Section 401 CrPC I am of the considered view that the findings of the trial Court as well as of the appellate Court do not call 1 for any interference since I am satisfied that the complainant had led sufficient evidence on the record to establish culpability of the accused-petitioner as well as his bona fides in presenting the complaint. However having regard to the fact that the petitioner has already undergone the sentence of three months and ten days S.I. but he is not in a position to deposit the amount of fine as directed by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court since provisions of the Act do not permit adopting any other alternative mode of realisation of the amount due to the complainant on the cheques being dishonoured for the reason of “insufficient fund” in the drawers account, the proper course to be adopted by the complainant in such a situation should be by filing a suit before the competent civil Court, for realisation recovery of the amount due to him for the reason of dishonoured cheques which the complainant is at liberty to avail of if so advised in accordance with law. 11. 11. As a result of the above discussion, the revision petition is dismissed as having become infructuous and the Judgment /order dated 18-12-98 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Alwar in Criminal Appeal No. 17/98, whereby the, order dated 8-10-97 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar by which the conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offence Under Section 138 of the Act was upheld is maintained being not open to any interference by this Court. If the civil suit is filed by the complainant before the competent civil Court within a period of 4 months from today, the same shall be expeditiously dealt with and decided by the trial Court within a period of 4 months thereafter. The summoned record be sent back forthwith.