JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') was tried for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.11509/2007 on the file of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Bangalore. 2. The learned trial judge held the petitioner guilty of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, petitioner was before the I-appellate court in Crl.A 457/2009. The learned judge of the I-appellate court on re-appreciation of evidence has confirmed the findings of the learned trial judge. Therefore, the petitioner is before this court. 3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent. 4. The averments of complaint are as follows:-The complainant is a public limited company duly incorporated and engaged in the business of providing financial assistance under Hire Purchase Scheme for vehicles. The accused is one of the customers. The accused had hired vehicle bearing registration No.KA-17/A-566 under Hire Purchase agreement dated 05.05.2004. The hire amount became due and the complainant demanded the same from the accused. The accused issued a cheque bearing No.729495 dated 25.10.2006 in favour of complainant for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- drawn on Chitradurga Grameena Bank at Holalkere. On presentation, the cheque was dishonored for want of sufficient funds. The complainant caused legal notice on 03.01.2007. The legal notice sent through registered post was returned with an endorsement 'absent' however, the copy of legal notice sent under 'Certificate of Posting' has been received by the accused. 5. The accused denied the entire transaction. The accused has contended that complainant had taken quotation for five vehicles and complainant directed accused to make down payment of Rs.50,000/- per vehicle. On 12.05.2004, a sum of Rs.9,45,000/-by means of Demand Draft and cash of Rs.50,000/- per vehicle has been paid to M/s.Bellad Engineering Pvt.Ltd., Hubli in respect of five vehicles. As there was difference between the accused and the dealer viz., M/s.Bellad Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Hubli, the accused informed the complainant to cancel the deal of five chassis and return the down payment made by the accused on 12.05.2004. The dealer returned a sum of Rs.9,45,000/-each in respect of two vehicles without any interest but, the cash payment made by the accused was not returned. The dealer returned a sum of Rs.9,45,000/-each in respect of two vehicles without any interest but, the cash payment made by the accused was not returned. The complainant instead of persuading the dealer to return the amount with interest had written a letter to the dealer not to return the margin money and concession for remaining three chassis. The accused was in need of funds, therefore, he entered into hire purchase agreement with the complainant in respect of vehicle bearing registration No.KA-16/2777 belonging to the accused. The accused created hire purchase agreement in favour of the complainant in respect of another vehicle bearing registration No.KA-17/5488 as he was told by the complainant that on execution of hire purchase agreement, funds will be released for body building of three chassis. 6. It is also contended by accused that though he had created hypothecation in favour of UTI Bank Limited, Bangalore at the instance of complainant, M/s.Durgambika Clearing and Seizing Agency and Nayana Seizing Agency have seized the vehicles. As a result, accused suffered loss of Rs.3 Lakhs. At the time of getting the finance from UTI Bank, the complainant had taken blank cheques from the accused and one of the said cheques has been misused by the complainant to file the instant complaint. There was no legally recoverable debt from the accused. The accused has contended that he had given blank cheque as security for repayment of money under the aforestated hypothecation agreement. 7. The learned trial judge on appreciation of evidence has held that, dishonored cheque was issued by the accused to discharge legally recoverable debt; the evidence adduced by accused is insufficient to rebut the presumption available under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned judge of the I-appellate court on reappreciation of evidence has confirmed the findings of the trial court. 8. This court while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C., does not sit as a court second appeal. This court can interfere with the impugned judgment if the courts below have committed glaring errors in appreciation of evidence or errors of law resulting manifest injustice to petitioner/accused. 9. During cross-examination, the accused has admitted that he had borrowed money from the complainant in the year 2004. The accused had purchased a Lorry. The accused had visited the office of complainant at Davangere and executed necessary documents. 9. During cross-examination, the accused has admitted that he had borrowed money from the complainant in the year 2004. The accused had purchased a Lorry. The accused had visited the office of complainant at Davangere and executed necessary documents. He has also admitted that he has paid several installments to the complainant. He has also admitted that he had purchased a Lorry and he has repaid loan to complainant by several installments. He has also deposed that he had repaid money to UTI Bank through Sriram Transport Finance Company Limited. 10. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that there was a tripartite agreement between UTI Bank, complainant and the accused, therefore, there was no legally recoverable debt and cheque was not supported by consideration. 11. The learned counsel for complainant would submit that M/s.Sriram Transport Finance Company Limited was a franchisee of UTI Bank. In terms of loan agreement (Ex.P11) dated 12.05.2004, UTI Bank has authorized the complainant to recover money. The contents of loan agreement dated 12.05.2004 would reveal that accused had availed loan of Rs.9,45,000/- and agreed to repay total amount of Rs.10,82,484/-in 36 equal installments of Rs.30,069/-per month. The accused has committed default in repayment of installments. In the circumstances, the contention of accused that the cheque was not issued to discharge legally recoverable debt and the blank cheque was obtained by the complainant cannot be accepted. 12. The complainant has produced the Statement of Accounts (Ex.P9), which would reveal that accused was required to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant. The contents of cheque marked as per Ex.P2 would reveal that the accused had written the contents of the cheque and he has signed the cheque. Therefore, the defense of accused that he had issued a blank cheque to the complainant and it has been misused by the complainant cannot be accepted. The accused having contended that he had repaid the entire amount to UTI Bank Limited through the complainant has not produced documentary evidence in proof of repayment of entire loan. Therefore, the contention of accused that he had repaid the entire loan cannot be accepted. 13. The learned counsel for accused submits that accused has discharged entire liability on 21.06.2006. The accused having contended that he had repaid the entire amount to UTI Bank Limited through the complainant has not produced documentary evidence in proof of repayment of entire loan. Therefore, the contention of accused that he had repaid the entire loan cannot be accepted. 13. The learned counsel for accused submits that accused has discharged entire liability on 21.06.2006. The learned counsel for accused referring to the contents of 'B' Register Extract (Ex.D2) would submit that entries in relation to hypothecation of vehicles in favour of UTI Bank Limited, Bangalore were cancelled on 21.06.2006, therefore, accused has discharged entire liability. 14. It is the case of accused that vehicles which were hypothecated by him were seized. In the circumstances, after repossessing the vehicles, UTI Bank had to sell the vehicles. Therefore, entries relating to hypothecation agreement were cancelled. Above all, as per statement of accounts furnished by the complainant, accused was due in a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-as on 25.10.2006. In the statement of accounts, the proceeds realized from the sale of vehicle is shown as Rs.6,30,000/-and it has been given deduction by the complainant. Therefore, cancellation of entries in the 'B' Register Extract (Ex.D2) cannot be a ground to hold that accused had discharged entire liability. 15. The courts below on proper appreciation of evidence have recorded concurrent findings holding the accused guilty of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 16. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The Revision petition is dismissed.