ORDER : Rajendra Mahajan, J. The applicant/accused has preferred this criminal revision under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.06.08 passed by the 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 461/07 dismissing the appeal filed by the applicant and confirming the judgment dated 21.08.07 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate First Class Jabalpur in Criminal Case No. 23967/2006. The learned trial Judge has convicted the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short the 'Act') and sentenced thereunder to pay a fine of Rs. 60,000/- in default of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six months and also ordered that the respondent/complainant be paid Rs.55,000/- (rupees fifty five thousands) out of the fine sentence by way of compensation under the provisions of Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The essential facts for the just and proper adjudication of this revision are given below in short:- 2.1 The respondent filed a criminal complaint against the applicant for his prosecution under Section 138 of the Act and 420 of the IPC stating therein, inter alia, that the respondent is a registered partnership firm engaged in trading of business of pipes, fittings and sprinkler system and other equipments at Jabalpur. Dinesh P. Vora is the partner of the firm and Upendra Singh is authorised by the firm to file court proceedings against the applicant. The applicant is the sole proprietor of M/s. Ganesh Traders. The applicant has business relations with the respondent. The applicant purchased goods from the respondent and in liquidation of the price of the goods the applicant issued two cheques bearing No.74146 dated 24.04.98 for Rs.10,000/- and cheque No.74150 dated 24.04.98 for Rs.42,255/-. The total amount of both the cheques (for short the cheques) is Rs.52,255/- and they are drawn by the applicant on the Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Branch Katangi Jabalpur. The respondent had sent the cheques for collection through its Banker, the Indian Bank, Branch Marhatal, Jabalpur. The drawer bank returned the cheques unpaid on account of insufficiency of funds in the applicant's bank account. The drawee bank sent this information to the respondent vide memo dated 09.06.98. The respondent had sent the cheques for collection through its Banker, the Indian Bank, Branch Marhatal, Jabalpur. The drawer bank returned the cheques unpaid on account of insufficiency of funds in the applicant's bank account. The drawee bank sent this information to the respondent vide memo dated 09.06.98. Thereafter, the respondent sent statutory notices dated 13.06.98 in the name of applicant and his firm, which were received by it unserved on 09.06.98 with the postal endorsements that the addressees refused to take them. 2.2 The trial court registered the complaint under Section 138 of the Act against the applicant. 2.3 The applicant denied the charge levelled against him under Section 138 of the Act. His defence is that he has given the cheques to the respondent for security of the commercial transactions. Hence, he has not committed the offence under Section 138 of the Act. 2.4 During the trial of the case, the respondent has examined his representative Upendra Singh (PW-1) and exhibited 13 documents. On the other hand, the applicant has examined himself. It may be pertinent to mention here that the applicant has filed his examination-in-chief on affidavit. The trial court fixed the case for his cross-examination on 21.07.07. On that date, neither the respondent's counsel nor its representative Upendra Singh appeared. Under the circumstance, the trial court has closed the right of cross-examination of the applicant by the respondent. 2.5 Upon appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned trial Judge convicted the applicant under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced as stated in para-1 of this order rejecting his defence. 2.6 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the applicant filed an appeal, which has been dismissed by the appellate court vide the impugned judgment affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the trial court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is proved by the applicant with cogent and coherent evidence that he has issued the cheques Ex.P-2 and P-3 to the respondent by way of security of business transactions which would take place between the applicant and the respondent. Hence, the offence under Section 138 of the Act is not made out in view of the law laid down by the apex court in case of Vijay Laxmi and others v. Laxman and others ( 2013 (2) JLJ 1 SC). Hence, the offence under Section 138 of the Act is not made out in view of the law laid down by the apex court in case of Vijay Laxmi and others v. Laxman and others ( 2013 (2) JLJ 1 SC). Resultantly, the trial Court has committed a legal error by convicting the applicant under Section 138 of the Act and the same is by the appellate court while affirming the judgment. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside acquitting the applicant of the charge under Section 138 of the Act. It is also submitted by him that the fine sentence is excessive. 4. Per-contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the applicant has admitted in his evidence that he had purchased goods from the respondent vide bills Ex.P-4 and P-5 on credit and for the payment of remaining amount of bills he has issued the cheques. In view of the above admission of the applicant in his evidence, it is amply proved that the applicant has not issued the cheques to the respondent by way of security of the transactions. Thus, the learned trial Judge and the learned appellate Judge have not committed any legal error by convicting the applicant under Section 138 of the Act. It is also submitted by him that the fine sentence as awarded by the learned trial Judge and confirmed by the learned appellate Judge is not excessive looking to the total amount of the cheques. Consequently, there is no need on the part of this Court to interfere with the impugned judgment. 5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the evidence and material on record and the judgments of both the courts below with utmost circumspection. 6. Following are the points for consideration before this Court:- (i) Whether the applicant has given the cheques Ex.P- 2 and P-3 to the respondent by way of security of commercial transactions? (ii) Whether the fine sentence is excessive? Point No.1- 7. Upendra Singh (PW-1) has testified that the applicant had purchased goods from the respondent on 18.11.96 and 25.11.96 vide bills Ex.P-4 and P-5 on credit and after repeated reminders for the payment of remaining bill amount the applicant has issued the cheques Ex.P-2 and P-3 on 24.04.98 for Rs.42,255/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively. The total amount of the cheques is Rs.52,255/-. Upendra Singh (PW-1) has testified that the applicant had purchased goods from the respondent on 18.11.96 and 25.11.96 vide bills Ex.P-4 and P-5 on credit and after repeated reminders for the payment of remaining bill amount the applicant has issued the cheques Ex.P-2 and P-3 on 24.04.98 for Rs.42,255/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively. The total amount of the cheques is Rs.52,255/-. In his cross, he has denied the suggestion that the cheques are issued by the applicant by way of security of commercial transactions. Applicant Ganesh (DW-1) has admitted in his examination-in-chief that he has purchased goods vide bills Ex.P-4 and P-5. He has paid the respondent Rs.8,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- on 08.03.97, 22.03.97 and 26.07.2003 respectively and he returned the respondent 38 pipes worth Rs.15,314/- as they were of inferior quality. He has also stated that he is ready to pay the respondent remaining amount Rs.29,646/- due to it. However, the applicant has not submitted any documentary evidence for the payment of aforesaid amount and the return of the 38 pipes. Hence, his evidence cannot be relied upon, but it follows from his evidence that he has given the cheques Ex.P-2 and P-3 to the respondent towards the payment of bills Ex.P-4 and P-5. Thus, the trial court and the appellate court have rightly held that the applicant has given cheques Ex.P-2 and P-3 for the payment of remaining amount of bills Ex.P-4 and P-5. Point No.2- 8. The total amount of the cheques Ex.P-2 and P-3 is Rs.52,255/-. The trial court has imposed, as affirmed by the appellate court, fine-sentence Rs.60,000/-. Looking to the cheques amount of Ex.P-2 and P-3, the fine-sentence cannot be said to be excessive. 9. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the applicant has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. Thus, this revision being meritless is dismissed affirming the impugned judgment.