ORDER : Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The accused-petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 397 readwith Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 22.8.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in Criminal Appeal No.49/2015 whereby the learned Appellate Court by dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 374 Cr.P.C. affirmed and upheld the judgment and order dated 24.4.2015 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu in Criminal Case No.496/2012 whereby the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and also imposed fine of Rs.1,27,000/-. It was further directed that if the fine is deposited by the petitioner an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- would be paid to the respondent-complainant as compensation. It was also directed that in default of payment of fine, petitioner will further suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. 3. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that complaint for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act was filed by the respondent-complainant against the petitioner with the averment that petitioner obtained Rs.1 lac from him on 25.12.2011 as loan and to ensure repayment thereof he issued Cheque No.378112 of Induslnd Bank. It was further averred that when the cheque in question was presented by the respondent in his bank for encashment the same was dishonored by the reason that the petitioner has already closed his account on 26.8.2010. It was also averred that respondent sent a notice through his lawyer on 13.2.2012 with a demand to make payment of the aforesaid amount, but the petitioner failed to pay the same despite notice was received by him. In support of his case, respondent produced oral as well as documentary evidence whereas petitioner in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegation levelled against him and in defence he examined himself and produced Shri Yakub as a witness. Learned trial Court after considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the evidence made available on record convicted and sentenced the petitioner as already stated and appeal filed by him also stood dismissed. 4. Learned trial Court after considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the evidence made available on record convicted and sentenced the petitioner as already stated and appeal filed by him also stood dismissed. 4. In support of the petition, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that from the evidence produced in defence on behalf of the petitioner it is clear that petitioner took a loan of Rs.30,000/- from the respondent and the respondent after deducting Rs.4,000/- as interest in advance paid Rs.26,000/- only to petitioner which amount was repaid by him in the presence of defence witness-Shri Yakub, but respondent misused the signed blank cheque given by the petitioner as security in the year 2010 and filed complaint after making necessary entries in it. It was further submitted that after making payment of amount of Rs.30,000/- taken by the petitioner as loan from the respondent, the petitioner closed his bank account and this fact was in the knowledge of the respondent but even then he by misusing the cheque in question given as security presented it for encashment. Lastly, it was submitted that learned Courts below without properly considering the defence evidence produced by the petitioner convicted and sentenced the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent controverting the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there is ample evidence available on record to show that petitioner obtained an amount of Rs.1 lac from the respondent as loan on 25.12.2011 and to secure the repayment of the same, cheque in question was given despite the fact that bank account for which the cheque was issued has already been closed by the petitioner. It was further submitted that although petitioner has tried to take a defence to the effect that only an amount of Rs.26,000/- was given by the respondent to him as loan in the year 2010, which was repaid by him and thereafter the bank account was closed, but neither during the course of cross-examination of the respondent nor in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. such defence was put up by the petitioner, which clearly shows that the defence subsequently taken by the petitioner is a afterthought. It was also submitted that both the Courts have arrived at a concurrent finding after evaluating and appreciating the evidence available on record and no case has been made out by the petitioner for interference by this Court. 6. On consideration of submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, the evidence available on record and the relevant legal provisions and more particularly in view of the reasons recorded by the Courts below in support of the impugned orders, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or perversity in the same requiring interference by this Court. There is ample evidence in support of the allegations levelled by the respondent regarding legally enforceable loan given by him to the petitioner and issuance of cheque in question to him by the petitioner to secure the repayment of the aforesaid amount. So far as defence taken by the petitioner is concerned, it is of no relevance as it was not put to the respondent-complainant when he appeared as a witness in the trial Court to support his case and in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also no such plea was taken by the petitioner. It is also pertinent to note that reply was not given by the petitioner to the legal notice sent by the respondent after the cheque in question stood dishonored by the reason that the bank account for which it was issued has already been closed on 26.8.2010 i.e. prior to the issuance of cheque in question. No case could be made out on behalf of the petitioner to interfere in the impugned orders. Consequently, the criminal revision petition being meritless is, hereby, dismissed. In view of the above order, the application for suspension of sentence is also dismissed.