JUDGMENT Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.: (Oral) - The present criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 23.11.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul thereby dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment dated 21.11.2008, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul. 2. Shorn of detailed background of the case, it would suffice to refer to the basic facts relevant for disposal of the present case. A complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’), was filed by the petitioner against the respondents. After conclusion of the trial, the accused was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and was convicted thereunder, accordingly. 3. It is pertinent to note here that the accused had confessed his guilt. Thereafter, it is an admitted position on record that the accused paid the cheque amount, which was accepted by the complainant-petitioner. In this view of the matter, the learned trial Court ordered the release of the accused on probation. However, accused was burdened with costs of Rs.5,000/-. It was further ordered that on having been realised, the costs of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the complainant. 4. Dissatisfied with the order dated 21.11.2008 releasing the respondent on probation, petitioner filed his appeal before the learned Sessions Court, Narnaul, which came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, vide impugned judgment dated 23.11.2009. 5. Feeling aggrieved against the above-said order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant criminal revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the learned trial Court has committed serious error of law while releasing the respondent on probation. He also contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, has committed patent illegality while passing the impugned judgment dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. Finally, he submitted that the instant petition be allowed and the respondent be sentenced, in accordance with law. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and with his able assistance have gone through the record of the case. 8. Finally, he submitted that the instant petition be allowed and the respondent be sentenced, in accordance with law. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and with his able assistance have gone through the record of the case. 8. After giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised and in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present one is not a fit case for exercising the revisional jurisdiction by this Court. I say so because the learned trial Court has not acceded its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order releasing the respondent on probation. Similarly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has also not committed any patent illegality while passing the impugned judgment. It is not disputed at the bar that the respondent had paid the cheque amount. Thereafter, the respondent was released on probation. The trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion while releasing the respondent on probation. 9. No patent illegality or perversity has been pointed out in either the order dated 21.11.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul or in the judgment dated 23.11.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul. Further, it is the settled proposition of law that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited one. Glaring and patent illegality in the impugned orders is the sine qua non for interfering in revisional jurisdiction by this Court. 10. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, the present criminal revision petition is wholly misconceived, without any substance and it must fail. 11. Resultantly, the instant criminal revision petition stands dismissed.