JUDGMENT Dev Darshan Sud, J(Oral). This criminal revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner accused against the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirmour passed in appeal affirming the judgment and sentence passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Sirmour, convicting the petitioner herein to pay a fine of Rs.8, 18,500.35 paise and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court.. 2. The bank instituted the complaint out of which the present proceeding arises on the allegation that M/s Wadhwa Pharmochem Private Ltd., Kala Amb (hereinafter ‘Wadhwa Pharma’) had been obtaining financial facilities in the nature of cash credit limit for the last seven years. In accordance with the agreement, the raw material and finished/semi-finished goods were hypothecated with the bank. The sale proceeds of these goods were required to be deposited by them in the cash credit account. The complaint then proceeds that Wadhwa Pharma sold their products to the accused by bill No. 17 dated 13.11.1995 Ext.PW4/D for Rs.3,06,000.50 paise, bill No. 18 dated 15.11.1995 Ext.PW4/E for Rs.2,92,001.90 paise and bill No. 20 dated 19.11.1995 Ext.PW4/N for a sum of Rs. 2,20,497.95 paise which goods were dispatched through transport Company and the documents were submitted to the Bank to be retired by the complainant. These goods could not be released from the transport Company by the accused without retiring the documents i.e. paying the amount of these bills to the bank. 3.On the request of Wadhwa Pharma, the bank purchased these bills aggregating to Rs. 8,18,500.35 paise and paid this amount to Wadhwa Pharma to the extent of 75% on the assurance that the bills would be retired by the consignee (accused in this case), before taking delivery of goods from the transport Company. The accused managed the delivery of the goods in connivance with Wadhwa Pharma. By letter dated 8.6.1996 (Ext.PJ) addressed to the complainant bank sent cheque No. 055202 for a sum of Rs. 8,18,500.35 paise drawn on the bank of Baroda, Jawaharnagar, New Delhi in the name of Wadhwa Pharma constituting the consideration for three bills and with the assurance that on presentation of the cheque it would be honoured by the bank. Wadhwa Pharma had delivered letter dated 10.6.1996 (Ext.PB) requesting the complainant to collect the amount. The bank was the holder of the cheque in due course. Wadhwa Pharma had delivered letter dated 10.6.1996 (Ext.PB) requesting the complainant to collect the amount. The bank was the holder of the cheque in due course. On these assurances, the complainant-bank paid the amount to Wadhwa Pharma and the complainant sent the cheque in question for collection, but the same was returned with the remarks “insufficient funds”. Two notices, one by registered post and another by U.P.C. were issued to the accused but of no avail. After recording preliminary evidence, the accused was summoned to face trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 4. The point formulated by the learned trial Court for determination was that whether the cheque Ext.PA for a sum of Rs.8, 18,500.35 paise was dis-honoured thereby attracting the provisions of the ‘Act’ . The learned trial Court holds the fact that cheque Ext.PA for a sum of Rs.8, 18,500.35 paise drawn on the bank of Baroda, Jawaharnagar Branch, New Delhi has not been disputed by the accused. His defence was that the cheque issued to Wadhwa Pharma as security and not against any liability nor was it issued to the bank. There was no privity of contract between the accused and the Bank. 5. Adverting to letter Ext.PB written by Wadhwa Pharma to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Kala Amb, stating that: “We advised that the payments in respect of under noted bills by means of cheques noted there against each bill have been received direct by us with a letter addressed to you regarding their payments.M/s Classic Agencies, New Delhi. Sr.No.Bill No.DateAmountCheque No.&dateAmount. 1.1713.11.19953,06,000.50055202 dt.8.6. 19968,18,500.35 2.1815.11.19952,92,001.50-do- 3.2019.11.19952,20,497.35-do- M/s. Crown Traders, Delhi. Sr.No.BillDateAmountChequeAmount. No.No.& date 1.18A31.1.19963,50,993.50928960 dt.8.6. 19967,93,538.80 2.20A3.2.19964,43,535.30-do- In this connection we enclosed the photo copy of the letters received from above noted buyers, the contents of which are self explained. We therefore request you to please purchase the above noted cheques as D.D. as per assurance by the concern party. The payments of above cheques will be honoured in bank and we shall not draw any amount against this credit.” 6.Bill No. 17 dated 12.11.1995 (Ext.PW4/D) for a sum of Rs.3,06,000.50 paise, bill No. 18 dated 15.11.1995 (Ext.PW4/E) for a sum of Rs.2,92,00 1.90 paise and bill No. 20 dated 19.11.1995 (Ext.PW4/N) for a sum of Rs.2,20,497.95 paise have been proved on the record. These bills prove that finished goods have been dispatched/sent by Wadhwa Pharma to the accused M/s Classic Agency. It was thereafter that the accused issued cheque Ext.PA to Wadhwa Pharma which cheque, in turn, was sent by Wadhwa Pharma to the bank with a request to purchase the same as noticed by letter Ext.PB. Memo (Ext.PC) dis-honouring the cheque issued by the Bank of Baroda notes: “refer to drawer (19-a) insufficient funds”. Complainant bank thereafter issued memo Ext.PD informing Wadhwa Pharma that the cheque had bounced. Notices Ext.PE, Ext.PE/1 and Ext.PE/2 dated 10.7.1996 have been issued to Munish Mehra accused herein with respect to this fact. Letter (Ext.PJ) written by Classic Agency states: “Enclosed herewith a cheque No. 055202 dated 08.06.1996 for Rs. 8,18,500.35 being the payment of bill No.17 dated 13.11.1995 for Rs. 3,06,000.50, bill No. 18 dated 15.11.1 995 for Rs.2,92,001 .50 and bill No. 20 dated 19.11.1995 for Rs.2,20,497.35 of M/s Wadhwa Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd, Kala Amb (H.P). The delivery of goods against these bills direct on the transport company after furnishing the Indemnity Bond. Further we assure the cheque when presented to our banker shall be owned failing which bank to reserve to right sue us under section 138 of the Instrument Act.” 7. The case set up before the trial Court was one of no liability as it was a dispute between Wadhwa Pharma and the accused. 8. The learned trial Court on the evidence, accepted the evidence of the complainant-bank and rejected the contention that Ext.PJ, as noticed above, has been forged or fabricated by the bank. The accused was held guilty for the offences and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.8, 18,500.35 paise and to suffer rigorous imprisonment till rising of the Court and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 9. The petitioner appealed. Learned District Judge, re considers the entire evidence. Again, what was urged before the learned appellate Court was that Ext. PA which is the cheque in question did not create any liability for payment of the amount to the complainant bank and that it had been issued as security to Wadhwa Pharma. PW4 Sh.Rakesh Verma , who was the Bank Manager of State Bank of India, Kala Amb Branch states that cash credit limit of Rs. 43,00,000/- had been availed by Wadhwa Pharma. PW4 Sh.Rakesh Verma , who was the Bank Manager of State Bank of India, Kala Amb Branch states that cash credit limit of Rs. 43,00,000/- had been availed by Wadhwa Pharma. Its goods were hypothecated with the bank and credit limit to the extent of 75% was allowed on the bills of Wadhwa Pharma. He proved that Wadhwa Pharma had sold goods to M/s Classic Agency vide Ext.PW4/A to Ext.PW4/J. He stated that 75% of the amount of these bills was credited in the account of Wadhwa Pharma vide Ext.PW4/B, Ext.PW4/X to Ext.PW4/Z. Classic Agency without retiring the documents took delivery of the goods from the transport Company. He stated that cheques Ext.PJ, Ext.PB and Ext.PA amounting to Rs.8,88,500.35 paise signed by the proprietor of M/s Classic Agency was handed over to him by Sh. Subir Jain, the then Director of Wadhwa Pharma . His deposition was supported by Sh.S.S.Randhwa (PW1), who was also the Bank Manager of S.B.I., Kala Amb. The Court then takes into consideration letter dated 8.6.1996 Ext.PJ and the appeal was dismissed. 10.The accused is now in revision. The same very points as canvassed before the learned courts below have been urged in support of the contention that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences. 11.When this revision was taken up, Mr.K.D.Sood, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent bank urges that in revision, it is not open to this Court to re-appreciate findings of fact which have been arrived at after consideration and re-consideration of the entire evidence by the learned trial Court as also by the learned appellate Court. He relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Appa Balu Ingale and others, 1995 Supp (4) S.C.C. 469, Deb Narayan Halder Vs. Smt. Anushree Halder, AIR 2003 S.C. 3174 and Jagannath Choudhary and others Vs. Ramayan Singh and another, (2002) 5 S.C.C 659. He relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Appa Balu Ingale and others, 1995 Supp (4) S.C.C. 469, Deb Narayan Halder Vs. Smt. Anushree Halder, AIR 2003 S.C. 3174 and Jagannath Choudhary and others Vs. Ramayan Singh and another, (2002) 5 S.C.C 659. In Jagannath Chaudhary’s case, the Supreme Court holds: 9.Incidentally the object of the revisional jurisdiction as envisaged under Section 401 was to confer upon superior criminal court a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction, in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precautions of apparent harshness of treatment which has resulted on the one hand in some injury to the due maintenance of law and order, or on the other hand in some underserved hardship to individuals. (See in this context the decision of this Court Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Ors., 1992] 4 SCC 305). The main question which the High Court has to consider in an application in revision is whether substantial justice has been done. If however, the same has been an appeal, the applicant would be entitled to demand an adjudication upon all questions of fact or law which he wishes to raise, but in revision the only question is whether the court should interfere in the interests of justice. Where the court concerned does not appear to have committed any illegality or material irregularity or impropriety in passing the impugned judgment and order, the revision cannot succeed. If the impugned order apparently is presentable, without any such infirmity which may render it completely perverse or unacceptable and when there is no failure of justice, interference cannot be had in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.10.While it is true and now well-settled in a long catena of cases that exercise of power under Section 401 cannot but be ascribed to be discretionary - this discretion, however, as is popularly informed has to be a judicious exercise of discretion and not an arbitrary one. Judicial discretion cannot but be a discretion which stands “informed by tradition, methodised by analogy and disciplined by system” - resultantly only in the event of a glaring defect in the procedural aspect or there being a manifest error on a point of law and thus a flagrant miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction under this statute ought not to be called for. It is not to be lightly exercised but only in exceptional situations where the justice delivery system requires interference for correction of manifest illegality or prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. In Nosibolla : Logendranath Jha and Chinnaswamy Reddy (supra) as also in Thakur Das (Thakur Das (Dead) by Lrs. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., [1978] 1 SCC 27 this Court with utmost clarity and in no uncertain terms recorded the same. It is not an appellate forum wherein scrutiny of evidence is possible neither the revisional jurisdiction is open for being exercised simply by reason of the factum of another view being other wise possible. It is restrictive in its application though in the event of there being a failure of justice there can said to be no limitation as regards the applicability of the revisional power.11.The High Court possesses a general power of superintendence over the actions of court subordinate to it. On its administrative side, the power is known as the power of superintendence. On the judicial side, it is known as the duty of revision. The High Court can at any stage even on its own motion, if it so desires, and certainly when illegalities or irregularity resulting in injustice are brought to its notice call for the records and examine them. This right of the High Court is as much a part of the administration of justice as its duty to hear appeals and revisions and interlocutory applications - so also its right to exercise its powers of administrative superintendence. Though however, the jurisdictional sweep of the process of the High Court, however, under the provisions of Section 401 is very much circumscribed, as noticed hereinbefore. (667 & 668) 12.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urges that the finding are perverse and in this eventuality, there can be no fetters on the powers of this Court to consider the evidence, which on a prima facie consideration would show/establish that no criminality can be attributed to the petitioner. There can be no dispute with the propositions of law, as urged by learned counsel appearing for the parties. During the course of arguments, it was also urged that in proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (D.R.T.), the bank has sued for this very amount amongst others as debt due from Wadhwa Pharma. There can be no dispute with the propositions of law, as urged by learned counsel appearing for the parties. During the course of arguments, it was also urged that in proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (D.R.T.), the bank has sued for this very amount amongst others as debt due from Wadhwa Pharma. 13.I do not find any such case having been set up before the learned trial Court or the appellate Court. Even taking into consideration these facts in the present revision petition, I cannot convert this court into a Court of Original trial to consider the entire case afresh. The case was kept pending so that it could be ascertained as to whether this amount had actually been recovered by the bank from Wadhwa Pharma or not but no specific information was provided by the parties. 14.Adverting to the facts of the present case and reading of Ext.PB and Ext.PJ, there is no doubt in my mind that the bank was holder in due course of the cheque and had presented the cheque Ext.PA for payment which had been dis­honoured. I also find that if there was any dispute with Wadhwa Pharma and the accused, the accused has not instituted any civil or criminal proceedings against them. 15.On consideration of the evidence afresh, I find that the evidence of the complainant concludes the entire controversy. Two letters referred to above, namely, Ext.PB and Ext.PJ are sufficient by themselves to prove that the accused had not paid this amount to Wadhwa Pharma as security which is the defence set up. I also find that the case has now set up that this was a transaction inter se between the accused and the Wadhwa Pharma, the accused has not filed any civil or criminal proceedings against them. 16.In these circumstances, I cannot find any infirmity in the judgment of the two courts below. I do not find that the evidence in the courts below has either been mis-interpreted, mis-read or the conclusion arrived at are perverse which cannot be arrived at by any reasonable person. If there is any dispute between the petitioner and Wadhwa Pharma, it can be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction. This revision petition, is, therefore, dismissed. If there is any dispute between the petitioner and Wadhwa Pharma, it can be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction. This revision petition, is, therefore, dismissed. The petitioner is directed to deposit the amount of compensation/fine as imposed by the trial Court on or before 31st December, 2012 and in case of failure to do so, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months as imposed by the learned trial Court shall revive which shall be dutifully executed. 17. It is directed that should the bank recover the amount of the cheque Ext.PA from Wadhwa Pharma, in that eventuality, the fine amount/compensation will be only Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupee one lakh fifty thousand only) for which purpose both the parties can approach this Court again for adjustment of the fine amount. Petition disposed of.