JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.06.2006 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Addl. Session Judge No. 2, Kamrup, Guwahati in Crl. A. No. 41/2005 affirming the judgment and order dated 11.04.2005 passed by the learned SDJM(S), No.1, Kamrup, Guwahati in C. R. No. 18c/2004 convicting the petitioner u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short N. I. Act) and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to suffer imprisonment for 6 months and directing him to pay the cheque amount of Rs. 2,12,808.00 to the respondent complainant as compensation. 2. In order appreciate the merit of this revision, essential factual details as per the version of the complainant respondent is that he is a business man by profession and carrying on the business under the name and style of M/S Prince Watch Company, located at Fancy Bazar, Guwahati. The accused petitioner was a customer of the complainant and was liable to pay the amount of Rs. 2,12,808.00 to the complainant. The accused petitioner by way of repayment issued 3 A/C payee cheques bearing No. 814130 dated 12.10.2003 for Rs. 50,000/- No 814132 dated 13.10.2003 for Rs.29,604.00 and No. 814134 dated 20.11.2003 for Rs. 1,33,204.00 in favour of the complainant drawn at the Punjab and National Bank, Mahabir Market SRCB Road, Guwahati. The complainant presented the cheque to his banker Central Bank of India but those were dishonoured due to insufficiency of fund in the account of the accused petitioner. The complainant respondent, therefore, issued legal notice on 8.12.2003 to the accused petitioner and in response to the notice, the accused petitioner replied to the complainant admitting his liability and expressed his willingness to pay the same in instalments but ultimately failed to do so which compelled the complainant to filed the complaint. 3. It is an admitted fact that the complainant respondent is the owner of M/S Prince Watch Company situated at Fancy Bazar and it is also admitted that the accused petitioner had a business relationship with him and he used to purchase materials from his shop from time to time. It is also not in dispute that the accused petitioner issued 3 A/C payee cheques in favour of the complainant respondent and those were dishonoured. 4. Mr. It is also not in dispute that the accused petitioner issued 3 A/C payee cheques in favour of the complainant respondent and those were dishonoured. 4. Mr. O.P. Bhati, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner submits that the cheques were not issued for discharging any debt or liability but those were issued as security for purchasing goods on credit. Refereeing to the evidence of DW 1 the accused petitioner, Mr. Bhati made strenuous submissions to convince me that the cheques were issued as security. 5. In controversion, learned counsel appearing for the complainant respondent submits that the accused petitioner himself admitted his liability in reply to the statutory notice issued by the complainant. Moreover, in his defence statement u/s 313 CrPC he denied having issued the cheques and no plea was taken that the cheques were issued as security. Learned counsel for the complainant also argued that in view of the ban imposed by Section 397(3) of the CrPC which provides that if an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them, the present petition, being a second revision petition is not maintainable. It is further submitted that there has been concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the courts below and the High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence on record to upset the concurrent findings. 6. In a case u/s 138 of the N.I. Act it is to be proved by the complainant that the cheques had been issued towards lawful payments and in such a case it is for the accused to discharge the burden u/s 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act that the cheques had not been issued towards discharging a legal debt but was issued by way of security or any other reason on account of some business transactions or was obtained unlawfully. In this case the complainant had reasonably discharged the burden of proving that the cheques had been issued in his favour by the accused petitioner towards lawful payments and those were dishonoured on presentation to his banker due to insufficiency of fund. 7. In this case the complainant had reasonably discharged the burden of proving that the cheques had been issued in his favour by the accused petitioner towards lawful payments and those were dishonoured on presentation to his banker due to insufficiency of fund. 7. Although the accused petitioner took the plea that the cheques were issued as a security but he failed to prove the plea and in fact he admitted his liability in reply to the demand notice issued by the complainant. No such plea was also taken by him in his defence statement u/s 313 CrPC. He made a feeble attempt to prove, by adducing evidence that those were issued as security but failed to discharge the burden although the standard of proof required for rebutting the presumption u/s 118 and 139 of the N. I. Act is not as high as required by the prosecution and is may be proved by preponderance of probabilities, but in the instant case the accused petitioner even by prepondered evidence failed to discharge the burden of proving that the cheques were issued as security for purchase of materials on credit. In this regard there has been concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the courts below and there is nothing to show that evidence on record was mislead or not properly appreciated. Moreover, in view of the bar imposed by section 397(3) of the CrPC, the revision itself is not found to be maintainable and I find no reason to exercise the inherent power of the court u/s 482 of the CrPC and set aside the concurrent finding. In my considered view, the finding of the learned Sessions Judge calls for no revisional interference and accordingly, the present revision stands dismissed. 8. The accused petitioner is directed to deposit the amount as directed by the learned trial court. Mr. O. P. Bhati, learned counsel for the accused petitioner submits that the accused petitioner may be permitted to deposit the amount in 4 equal instalments. 9. In view of above submission and also consented to by the learned counsel for the respondent complainant, liberty is given to the accused petitioner to file an application before the learned trial court praying for depositing the amount in 4 monthly instalments and in the event of any such application filed, the same shall be considered. 10. 9. In view of above submission and also consented to by the learned counsel for the respondent complainant, liberty is given to the accused petitioner to file an application before the learned trial court praying for depositing the amount in 4 monthly instalments and in the event of any such application filed, the same shall be considered. 10. Send down the Lower Court Record along with a copy of this judgment for information and necessary action. The accused petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court within 30 days from today and deposit the fine and compensation.