JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 CrPC is directed against judgment dated 6.4.2015 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, HP in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2015 affirming judgment of conviction recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Complaint No. 307-1/2011/430-1/2013 dated 11.8.2014, whereby complaint having been filed by the respondent-complainant (hereinafter, 'respondent') was accepted and petitioner-accused (hereinafter, 'petitioner') was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and further to pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- under Section 357(3) of CrPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts as emerge from record are that the respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, which came to be registered as Criminal Complaint No. 3070-1/2011/430- 1/2013, stating therein that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.2.00 Lakh from him under assurance to repay the same within a period of one month. Respondent further stated that since he was having good relations with the petitioner, he lent aforesaid amount to the petitioner, in the presence of certain persons. Petitioner, with a view to discharge his liability, issued cheque bearing No. 011840 dated 24.5.2011 amounting to RS.2.00 Lakh drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Patlikuhal Branch, District Kullu but on the presentation of cheque, same was returned to the respondent with remarks, "insufficient funds". Pursuant to dishonouring of the cheque, respondent got issued a legal notice to the petitioner on 15.6.2011 through registered post and advised therein to make good the payment qua the cheque. However, the fact remains that no heed was paid to the aforesaid requests having been made by the respondent and as such he was constrained to file complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the competent Court of law. 3. Learned trial Court on the basis of the primary evidence, issued process for presence of petitioner. Subsequently, notice of accusation was put to the petitioner, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, the fact remains that he did not lead any evidence in support of his case. 3. Learned trial Court on the basis of the primary evidence, issued process for presence of petitioner. Subsequently, notice of accusation was put to the petitioner, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, the fact remains that he did not lead any evidence in support of his case. Respondent, with a view to prove his case, examined himself as CW-1 and also tendered his statement by way of affidavit along with five other documents, whereas petitioner-accused in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, admitted claim of the respondent with further explanation that after institution of complaint, he had already made payment of Rs.75,000/-, towards discharge of his liability. He also pleaded that rest of liability would be discharged by him within a period of one and half months, however, records suggests that despite sufficient opportunity having been afforded by the Court below, petitioner failed to discharge his liability in terms of statement made by him before the Court below. Learned trial Court, on the basis of material made available, found petitioner guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. Learned trial Court ordered the petitioner to pay Rs.2,50,000/- i.e. Rs.2.00 Lakh being cheque amount and Rs.50,000/- as damages under Section 357(3) CrPC, to be recovered from personal property of petitioner, after expiry of period allowed for filing appeal/revision. 4. Petitioner being aggrieved, filed appeal under Section 374(3) CrPC against the above judgment, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, being Cr. Appeal No. 5 of 2015. Learned first appellate Court though upheld the judgment of conviction passed by learned trial Court, but modified the amount of compensation from Rs.2,50,000/- awarded by the learned trial Court to Rs.1,35,000/-, in view of undertaking having been given by the petitioner to repay the remaining amount of Rs.1,35,000/- on or before 28.2.2015, keeping in view the fact that petitioner had agreed to repay the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,35,000/- on or before 28.2.2015. Petitioner further being aggrieved by the judgment of learned first appellate Court, has filed the present revision for setting aside the judgments passed by both the learned Courts below. 5. This Court, vide order dated 20.7.2015, suspended the sentence awarded by the learned Courts below, subject to petitioner's furnishing personal and surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court, within four weeks. 5. This Court, vide order dated 20.7.2015, suspended the sentence awarded by the learned Courts below, subject to petitioner's furnishing personal and surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court, within four weeks. It may be noticed that when this matter came up for hearing on 15.11.2016, Shri Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate, representing the petitioner, sought one week's time to comply with order dated 23.5.2016 passed by the Court, whereby petitioner was directed to deposit 50% of the remaining amount on or before 27.6.2016, this Court reluctantly granted one week's time to the petitioner to comply order dated 23.5.2016 subject to the condition that in the event of non-payment of amount in terms of aforesaid order, petitioner would render himself liable for sentence as imposed by the first appellate Court. Subsequently, on 22.11.2016, Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate informed this Court that the petitioner has brought one cheque amounting to Rs. 1,35,000/- in the name of respondent and as such, same may be accepted. However, on the request having been made by the counsel for the respondent, matter was ordered to be taken up after 15 days to ensure that aforesaid cheque having been handed over by the petitioner is encashed. Unfortunately, when matter was listed before this Court for orders, counsel representing the respondent informed that the cheque amounting to Rs.1,35,000/- has also been dishonoured. Counsel representing the petitioner-accused stated that the petitioner is not responding to the repeated telephonic calls and as such he is not in a position to make any statement. This Court after seeing the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner, called upon Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate, to argue the matter on merits. 6. Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently argued that the judgments passed by the learned Courts below are not sustainable as the same are not based upon correct appreciation of evidence available on record and as such same deserve to be set aside. Mr. Goel, further contended that the learned Courts below while deciding the complaint miserably failed to appreciate that petitioner had made payment of Rs.75,000/- and to this effect, statement was already recorded but despite that the learned trial Court awarded Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation in favour of the respondent and as such judgments passed by learned Courts below being contrary to the facts, deserve to be set aside. Mr. Mr. Goel, strenuously argued that bare perusal of evidence available on record clearly suggest that both the learned Courts below misread and misappreciated the evidence led on record by the parties and as such have arrived at erroneous findings to the detriment of the petitioner, who admittedly paid an amount of Rs.75,000/- to the respondent, towards discharge of his liability. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Goel, further contended that both the learned Courts below failed to appreciate that averments contained in the complaint did not constitute any offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act because neither there was any averment in the complaint that the cheque was issued in discharge of any legally enforceable liability nor same was proved by the complaint by leading cogent and convincing evidence on record. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Goel prayed that the petitioner may be acquitted of the charges framed against him under Section 138 of the Act after setting aside the judgments passed by both the learned Courts below. 7. Mr. C.N. Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent, supported the judgments of conviction/compensation recorded by the learned Courts below. Mr. Singh while referring to the judgments having been passed by the Courts below vehemently argued that bare perusal of same suggest that same are based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the respondent and as such there is no scope of interference by this Court, whatsoever, especially in view of concurrent findings as recorded by the learned Courts below. Mr. Singh while specifically inviting attention of this Court to the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 CrPC stated that he himself admitted entire liability and as such there was nothing left to be proved by the respondent, who in no uncertain terms stated before the Court that he on the request of petitioner had lent Rs.2.00 Lakh to the petitioner, who assured to return the same within stipulated period. Mr. Singh further stated that the respondent fairly stated before the Court that he has received a sum of Rs. 75,000/- out of Rs.2.00 Lakh and as such first appellate Court held the petitioner liable to pay Rs.1,35,000/- towards discharge of liability. Mr. Mr. Singh further stated that the respondent fairly stated before the Court that he has received a sum of Rs. 75,000/- out of Rs.2.00 Lakh and as such first appellate Court held the petitioner liable to pay Rs.1,35,000/- towards discharge of liability. Mr. Singh forcefully contended that it stands duly proved on record that the petitioner had taken Rs.2.00 Lakh from the respondent and as such there is no infirmity in the judgments passed by the Courts below, rather perusal of same suggests that each and every aspect of the matter has been dealt with meticulously by the Courts below and this Court has no scope to re-appreciate entire evidence especially while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC. Mr. Singh, has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in case State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999) 2 Supreme Court Cases 452, wherein it has been held as under:- "In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice." 8. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and have carefully gone through the record made available. 9. True, it is that while exercising the power under Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code, this Court has very limited power to re appreciate the evidence available on record. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and have carefully gone through the record made available. 9. True, it is that while exercising the power under Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code, this Court has very limited power to re appreciate the evidence available on record. But in the present case, where accused has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court solely with a view to ascertain that the judgments passed by both the Courts below are not perverse and the same are based upon correct appreciation of evidence available on record, undertook an exercise to critically examine the evidence available on record to reach fair and just decision in the case. 10. As far as scope of power of this Court while exercising revisionary jurisdiction under Section 397 is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishnan and another v. Krishnaveni and another, (1997) 4 Supreme Court Case 241; has held that in case Court notices that there is a failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/incorrectness committed by inferior criminal court in its judicial process or illegality or sentence or order. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced as under:- "8. The object of Section 483 and the purpose behind conferring the revisional power under Section 397 read with Section 401, upon the High Court is to invest continuous supervisory jurisdiction so as to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularity of the procedure or to mete out justice. In addition, the inherent power of the High Court is preserved by Section 482. The power of the High Court, therefore, is very wide. However, the High Court must exercise such power sparingly and cautiously when the Sessions Judge has simultaneously exercised revisional power under Section 397(1). However, when the High Court notices that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is but the salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/incorrectness committed by inferior criminal court in its judicial process or illegality of sentence or order." 11. During the proceedings of the case, this Court had an occasion to peruse entire evidence led on record by the parties as well as judgments having been rendered by the learned Courts below, perusal whereof, clearly suggests that the respondent had lent an amount of Rs. 2.00 Lakh to the petitioner. Petitioner, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, has clearly admitted that he had taken an amount of Rs. 2.00 Lakh from the respondent. He further stated that after institution of complaint having been filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, he made part payment of Rs. 75,000/- towards discharge of his liability. Further statement of petitioner-accused before the trial Court, wherein he specifically prayed for time to make complete payment, clearly suggests that he had taken an amount of Rs. 2.00 Lakh from the respondent and as such, this Court sees no illegality or infirmity in the judgments passed by the learned Courts below. Respondent, himself has stepped into witness box as CW-1 and successfully proved the averments of the complaint. Perusal of Ext. CW-1/A, affidavit, clearly suggest that he had extended friendly loan of Rs. 2.00 Lakh in favour of the petitioner. With a view to discharge his liability, rather had issued cheque Ext. CW-1/B. Cross-examination conducted on CW-1 nowhere suggests that the petitioner was able to extract anything contrary to what was stated by him in examination-in-chief. True, it is that the respondent, in his cross examination, admitted that after institution of the complaint, he received an amount of Rs. 75,000/- as part payment of liability but, at the same time, aforesaid suggestion put to the respondent by the petitioner clearly proves the case of the respondent that he had lent an amount of Rs. 2.00 Lakh to the petitioner, who, with a view to discharge his liability had issued cheque Ext. CW-1/B in favour of the respondent. Similarly, as has been noticed above, respondent himself has taken defence in his statement under Section 313 CrPC that he had issued cheque of Rs. 2.00 Lakh. It also stands duly proved no record that after receipt of cheque from the petitioner, respondent submitted the same before the payee Bank on 30.5.2011 but same was dishonoured with the remarks, "insufficient funds". In this regard, respondent tendered in evidence, memo Ext. 2.00 Lakh. It also stands duly proved no record that after receipt of cheque from the petitioner, respondent submitted the same before the payee Bank on 30.5.2011 but same was dishonoured with the remarks, "insufficient funds". In this regard, respondent tendered in evidence, memo Ext. CW-1/C, perusal whereof suggests that cheque in question was dishonoured due to insufficient funds on 30.5.2011. In similar manner, respondent has proved in accordance with law that after dishonouring of the cheque, he got a legal notice issued to the petitioner on 15.6.2011 by registered post but despite service of notice, petitioner failed to make payment. With a view to prove aforesaid service of legal notice upon the petitioner, respondent tendered in evidence copy of legal notice Ext. CW-1/D, postal receipt Ext. CW-1/E and acknowledgement Ext. CW-1/F. Perusal of aforesaid documents clearly proves on record that before initiating proceedings under Section 138 of the Act ibid, respondent completed all codal formalities within stipulated time and as such there is no defect, if any, in the complaint having been filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Act. Similarly, perusal of statement having been made by the petitioner under Section 313 CrPC also corroborates version put forth by the respondent that he had issued legal notice after dishonouring of cheque, because petitioner himself admitted the factum of receipt of notice by admitting that despite receipt of notice by him, he failed to make payment within a period of 15 days. 12. Consequently, in view of aforesaid discussion, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court, which has been affirmed by the first appellate Court, rather, this Court, after carefully examining entire evidence on record, is fully satisfied and convinced that the respondent successfully proved on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence that the petitioner had issued cheque of Rs.2.00 Lakh in his favour but despite issuance of legal notice, petitioner failed to make payment within stipulated period of 15 days. Since factum of payment of Rs.75,000/- during the pendency of the complaint was admitted by the respondent, learned first appellate Court modified the amount of compensation from Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs. 1,35,000/-. Since factum of payment of Rs.75,000/- during the pendency of the complaint was admitted by the respondent, learned first appellate Court modified the amount of compensation from Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs. 1,35,000/-. Perusal of judgment passed by learned first appellate Court suggests that the first appellate Court had further reduced the amount of damages from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.10,000/- because admittedly, petitioner had to pay amount of Rs.2.00 Lakh towards discharge of liability. Hence, this Court sees no illegality or infirmity in the judgments passed by the learned Courts below and accordingly the same are upheld. 13. Perusal of record of the Courts below as well as orders passed by this Court, adversely reflects upon the conduct of the petitioner, who despite rendering assurances repeatedly to make payment, failed to discharge his liability. Even in this court, on 22.11.2016, petitioner, with a view to discharge his liability, handed over cheque amounting to Rs.1,35,000/- in the name of respondent but, as has been noticed above, same has also been dishonoured. Though this court, in view of aforesaid conduct of the petitioner, would have hauled him for contempt of the Court but the cheque of Rs.1,35,000/- handed over to the respondent in this Court on 22.11.2016, was actually issued by the son of the petitioner. 14. In view of aforesaid discussion, the present revision is dismissed. Judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court is upheld. All pending applications are disposed of. Interim orders are vacated. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the petitioner are cancelled.