Judgment :- (Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment dated 25.7.2003 and made in C.C.No.221 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I Court, Pondicherry.) The revision petitioners are A1 and A2 in C.C.No.201 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I Court, Pondicherry. The revision is filed against the conviction and sentence imposed to the petitioners/A1 and A2 in the said case accepting the guilt pleaded by the accused when they were questioned. 2. The respondent filed the private complaint, which was taken on file under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.221 of 2003 stating that towards payment of Indian made foreign liquor supplied to the accused, four cheques were issued as stated in paragraph No.III(2) of the complaint and when presented for collection, the cheques were returned with endorsement "Funds insufficient" and after causing statutory notice dated 22.2.2003, which was not replied, the complaint was filed 3. On receipt of the copies furnished, when questioned the second accused on her behalf and on behalf of the first accused, she admitted the offence and stated that she paid the amount. Pursuant to such admission of the guilt, the trial Court pronounced the judgment convicting the accused and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 4. In the judgment, it is stated that the accused admitted the offence pleading guilty and though she further stated that she repaid the amount subsequently, the same has been declined by the complainant. The conviction and sentence on the plea of admission of guilt are now under challenge in this revision, inasmuch as in such case, appeal will not lie under Section 375 Cr.P.C. 5. Though it is urged for the respondent/complainant that the revision itself is not maintainable, in view of Section 375 Cr.P.C., it is made clear that where an accused person has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on such plea, there shall be no appeal. Therefore, the revision as filed is maintainable. 6. Though it is urged for the respondent/complainant that the revision itself is not maintainable, in view of Section 375 Cr.P.C., it is made clear that where an accused person has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on such plea, there shall be no appeal. Therefore, the revision as filed is maintainable. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/accused submitted that the accused when questioned after the copies were furnished, has clearly stated that she has repaid the amount, for which without affording opportunity to the accused to prove the same, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, is not proper and such finding and ultimate conviction and sentence being improper have to be set aside. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that when the accused was questioned, she has clearly admitted the guilt and also signed in English being the proprietrix of the first accused. The learned counsel also submitted that though the accused received notice dated 22.2.2003 issued by the complainant before filing of the complainant, the same was not replied. 8. The accused was questioned, after furnishing the copies of the complaint and other documents relied on by the complainant, that the four cheques issued by her towards the payment for the purchase of Indian made foreign liquor were dishonoured when presented for collection as "insufficient funds" and that the amount has not been settled despite the statutory notice dated 22.2.2003 which was acknowledged by the accused on 26.2.2003, it is stated by the accused in Tamil "cz;ikjhd;/ ehd; gzk; je;J tpl;nld;" (Yes, true. I discharged the amount) and she was further questioned whether she has committed the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, for which she answered in Tamil "Mk; xg;g[f; bfhs;fpwnwd;" (Yes. I accept the commission of offence). Therefore, it is clear on the facts that the accused accepted the offence and accordingly, it is stated so. Though she has stated that the amount has been settled, no documents filed by her to substantiate the same. In fact, no reply was caused by the accused though received the statutory notice dated 22.2.2003. If the amount was settled, it could have been stated so by the accused by way of reply notice. Only for the purpose of delaying the proceedings, it was stated by the accused that the amount was paid, for which there are no details. 9. If the amount was settled, it could have been stated so by the accused by way of reply notice. Only for the purpose of delaying the proceedings, it was stated by the accused that the amount was paid, for which there are no details. 9. Considering all these aspects and since the accused has admitted that she committed the offence, the Judicial Magistrate rightly found both the accused guilty under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced as set out above. Therefore, the judgment of the trial Court, being not erroneous or improper, there is no need to interfere in the said judgment and it is confirmed. 10. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The judgment of conviction dated 25.7.2003 passed in C.C.No.221 of 2003 by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pondicherry is confirmed. The bail bond executed by the accused is ordered to be cancelled. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pondicherry is directed to secure the custody of the accused to undergo the sentence confirmed by this Court.