JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, A.C.J. (Oral) Respondent had invoked the jurisdiction of the trial Court by way of complaint, filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the N.I.Act’), on the ground that the cheque, issued by the appellant-petitioner herein, was bounced. 2.The trial Court, after examining the complaint, pleadings and statement of accused-petitioner herein, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., came to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act but took a lenient view and asked the accused to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- within fixed time frame and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 3.Feeling aggrieved, the appellant–petitioner herein questioned the same way of appeal before the appellate Court, which was dismissed. The petitioner now has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by way of filing the present revision petition. 4.The revision petition is not maintainable on the face of it. However, if the petition is treated to have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the same is also not maintainable for the simple reason that the complainant has proved all the ingredients which do constitute the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the trial Court has taken a lenient view and asked the accused to pay only Rs.25,000/- and no compensation has been awarded despite the fact that the accused has dragged the complainant to the appellate Court as well as to this Court. However, I have gone through the impugned order. The impugned order is reasoned one, needs no interference and the same cannot be said to be the abuse of the process of law in any way. 5.Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of commanding the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount before the trial Court or pay directly to the complainant within four weeks from today.