JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. By way of instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.PC, challenge has been laid to judgment dated 5.7.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 29-s/10 of 2007/06, affirming the judgment/order of conviction dated 23.5.2006, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Theog, District Shimla, H.P., in Case No. 214-1 of 2004, whereby the learned trial Court while holding petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the “Act"), convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-. In case of default of payment, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 20 days. 2. Succinctly, fact necessary for adjudication of the present case are that respondent-complainant namely Sh. Partap Singh, preferred a complaint against the petitioner-accused, under Section 138 of the Act, in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Theog, District Shimla, H.P., alleging therein that the petitioner-accused, with a view to discharge his liability, issued a cheque bearing No. 373182 dated 28.3.2004, amounting to Rs. 28,000/-, drawn at HP State Co-operative Bank, Deha Branch, District Shimla, in favour of the complainant, however, fact remains that the aforesaid cheque was dishonoured on its presentation. Since petitioner-accused failed to make payment good within the stipulated period despite issuance of legal notice, respondent/complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings before the competent Court of law under Section 138 of the Act. 3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, sentenced him as per the description given herein above. 4. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court, the petitioner-accused preferred an appeal under Section 374 Cr.PC before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Shimla, H.P., however, fact remains that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 5.7.2007, dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner-accused, as a result of which the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court, came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, present petitioner-accused approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein his acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below. 5. Mr. Rakesh Manta, Advocate, representing the petitioner, vehemently argued that bare perusal of impugned judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below suggests that same are not based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties and as such, same deserve to be quashed and set-aside. While inviting attention of this Court to the impugned judgments of conviction passed by both the courts below, Mr. Manta, strenuously argued that bare perusal of the same suggests that both the courts below, failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, as a result of which, erroneous findings have come on record to the detriment of the petitioner-accused, who is an innocent person. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid arguments, Mr. Manta, invited attention of this Court to the complaint having been filed by the respondent-complainant, to demonstrate that there is no specific claim, as such, in the complaint that cheque amounting to Rs. 28,000/- was paid towards consideration, rather bare perusal of complaint as well as statement having been made by the complainant itself suggests that cheque in question was issued in favour of one Rakesh Kumar, and not in favour of the complainant, who later on misused the same. Mr. Manta, further contended that no specific question was put to the petitioner-accused by the court below while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, with respect to the receipt and service of legal notice allegedly got issued by the respondent-complainant. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Manta, contended that though, there is an overwhelming evidence available on record suggestive of the fact that cheque in question was mis-used by the respondent-complainant but despite that, even if this court comes to the conclusion that findings returned by the court below are sustainable, sentence awarded by the court below is harsh and oppressive and as such, same needs to be modified accordingly. Mr. Manta, further contended that some lenient view may be taken, as petitioner-accused is an old man of 66 years and does not keep good health. 2. On the other hand, Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, learned counsel representing the respondent-complainant supported the impugned judgment of conviction recorded by the court below. Mr. Manta, further contended that some lenient view may be taken, as petitioner-accused is an old man of 66 years and does not keep good health. 2. On the other hand, Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, learned counsel representing the respondent-complainant supported the impugned judgment of conviction recorded by the court below. While refuting aforesaid submissions having been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner accused, Mr. Dhaulta, invited attention of this Court to the complaint having been filed by the petitioner-accused to demonstrate that it has been specifically mentioned in the complaint that the complainant had advanced Rs. 28000/- to the petitioner accused, who with a view to discharge his liability issued cheque in question. While referring to the statement of complainant as well as other documentary evidence adduced on record, by the complainant, Mr. Dhaulta, contended that there is no illegality and infirmity in the judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below because complainant successfully proved all the ingredients of Section 138 of the Act that cheque in question was issued by the accused with a view to discharge his liability towards consideration of Rs.28,000/-, which he had admittedly taken from the respondent-complainant. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Dhaulta, forcefully contended that present petition is not maintainable in view of the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the court below and as such, this Court has very limited powers while exercising revisionary jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.PC, especially when it stands proved on record that court below has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter very meticulously and as such, prayed for dismissal of the present criminal revision petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record. 7. After having carefully perused impugned judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below vis-à-vis material available on record, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of Mr. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record. 7. After having carefully perused impugned judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below vis-à-vis material available on record, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Rakesh Manta, learned counsel representing the petitioner-accused that there is mis-reading, mis-interpretation and mis-construction of evidence led on record by the parties while holding the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under section 138 of the Act, rather this Court after having carefully examined/analyzed evidence adduced on record by the complainant, has no hesitation to conclude that judgment of conviction recorded by both the courts below are based upon correct appreciation of evidence available on record and there is no scope left for this Court to interfere in the well reasoned judgment of conviction recorded by the court below. 8. In the case at hand, it is undisputed that petitioner-accused in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.PC has admitted factum with regard to issuance of cheque as well as his signatures on the cheque in question. Though, petitioner-accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC has taken stand that cheque was not issued in favour of the respondent complainant, rather same was issued in favour of some other person namely Rakesh Kumar, but at this stage, it may be noticed that there was no attempt, if any, on the part of the petitioner-accused to cite aforesaid Rakesh Kumar as a witness in support of his claim. Since petitioner has acknowledged the factum with regard to issuance of cheque as well as his signatures on the cheque in issue, there was no scope left for the petitioner to take stand that cheque in question was issued in favour of respondent-complainant, rather same was issued in favour of Rakesh Kumar. Complainant while deposing as CW1 categorically stated that accused had issued cheque Ext.CW1/A in his name and same was dishonoured on its presentation to the HP State Cooperative Bank, Deha Branch, Shimla, H.P.. He further stated that cheque in question was returned by the Bank of the accused vide memo Ext.CW1/B and cheque was dishonoured on account of un-availability of funds in the account of the accused. Complainant further deposed before the Court below that he got issued legal notice, Ext.CW1/C to the accused under registered cover vide postal receipt Ext.CW1/D. 9. He further stated that cheque in question was returned by the Bank of the accused vide memo Ext.CW1/B and cheque was dishonoured on account of un-availability of funds in the account of the accused. Complainant further deposed before the Court below that he got issued legal notice, Ext.CW1/C to the accused under registered cover vide postal receipt Ext.CW1/D. 9. Cross examination conducted upon complainant, nowhere suggests that defence was able to shatter his testimony, rather bare perusal of statement having been made by the complainant in his cross-examination clearly suggests that he stuck to his stand, which he had taken in the examination-in-chief. 10. CW2 (Narain Singh) Branch Manager, Co-operative Bank Deha Branch, also testified that cheque book containing the cheques No. 373176 to 373200 was issued to Sh. Mohan Lal (accused) by the bank. He further stated that Ext.CW1/A was dishonoured for want of funds in the account of the accused. He also proved on record the memo/ slip Ext.CW1/B signed by him. Similarly, this witness also proved certificates suggestive of the fact that balance amount in the account of the accused was insufficient i.e. Ext.CW2/B. 11. Conjoint reading of statements having been made by the aforesaid complainant witnesses clearly suggests that cheque in question was issued by the respondent-complainant in favour of respondent-complainant with a view to discharge his liability. Similarly, it stands duly proved on record that after dishonoring of cheque, respondent-complainant got legal notice served upon the petitioner-accused well within stipulated time and same was duly served upon him. 12. This Court sees no reason to differ with the well reasoned judgments passed by the courts below that the accused miserably failed to rebut the presumption under Section 118-A and 139 of the Act, which lies in favour of the complainant that accused had issued cheque for consideration in discharge of his liability, by raising reasonable and probable defence. As per Section 118 of the Act, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration. Similarly, Section 139 provides that unless the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed that holder of the cheque received the cheque, for the discharge of whole or part of any debt or liability. As per Section 118 of the Act, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration. Similarly, Section 139 provides that unless the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed that holder of the cheque received the cheque, for the discharge of whole or part of any debt or liability. Perusal of evidence adduced on record by the complainant suggests that the complainant successfully proved on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence that he had advanced an amount of Rs. 28,000/- to the petitioner-accused, who in turn, issued cheque for discharge of his liability, which was ultimately dishonored on account of insufficient funds. 13. Leaving everything aside, this Court has a very limited jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.PC, to re-appreciate the evidence, especially, in view of the concurrent findings of fact and law recorded by the court below. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in case “State of Kerala Vs. 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.” Since after having carefully examined the evidence, in the present case, this Court was unable to find any error of law as well as fact, if any, committed by the courts below while passing impugned judgments, and as such, there is no occasion, whatsoever, to exercise the revisional power. 14. 14. Consequently this Court, after having perused the material available on record, sees no valid reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the courts below, which otherwise, appears to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence as such, same are accordingly upheld. However, taking note of the fact that more than 11 years have passed after passing of judgment of conviction dated 23.5.2006, passed by the learned trial Court and petitioner is an old man of 66 years, this Court deems it fit to modify the sentence as awarded by the court below from three months to seven days only, subject to payment of cheque amount to the tune of Rs. 28,000/- within a period of 20 days from today. It is made clear that in case, aforesaid amount is not paid to the respondent-complainant within the stipulated period, petitioner accused shall render himself liable to serve the sentence as imposed by the learned trial Court and in case, the payment is made within the aforesaid period, petitioner accused shall surrender himself before the learned trial Court to serve the sentence as awarded by learned trial Court and further modified by this Court vide this judgment. Needless to say that order dated 5.12.2007, passed by this Court, whereby sentence imposed by the Court below was suspended, shall stand vacated automatically after expiry of 20 days. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.