JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. - Instant criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397/ 401 of the Cr.PC, is directed against the judgment dated 20.8.2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, HP, in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2010, affirming the judgment and order of conviction dated 5.2.2010/6.2.2010, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mandi, District Mandi, HP, in Complaint No. 62-III/2007, whereby the accused-petitioner has been sentenced as per description given herein below:- "Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. To undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant." 2. Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short "the Act"), before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mandi, stating therein that petitioner-accused, who had friendly relation with him, asked for Rs. 75,000/- from him on return basis in order to meet some domestic needs. The complainant further stated that on the aforesaid request having been made by the accused, he gave him an amount of Rs. 75,000/- on the same day and in lieu of the same, accused issued post dated cheque bearing No. 035585 dated 5.7.2007 amounting to Rs. 75,000/- Ext.CW-1/A, drawn at C.D. Co-operative Credit Society Ltd Branch Office Gagal, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi. However, fact remains that on presentation, aforesaid cheque was returned by the banker on account of insufficient funds on 7.7.2007. The complainant again presented the aforesaid cheque for encashment on 11.7.2007 in the said bank, but it was again dishonored on account of insufficient funds. The complainant after dishonoring of aforesaid cheque got legal notice issued upon the accused calling upon him to make payment of cheque good within a period of 15 days but since no steps, whatsoever, were taken by the accused, respondent initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Act before the competent Court of law. 3. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mandi, after satisfying itself that prima facie case exists against the accused put a notice of accusation, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mandi, after satisfying itself that prima facie case exists against the accused put a notice of accusation, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the complainant, found the accused guilty of having committed offence under the aforesaid Section and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as per description already given above. 4. The present petitioner-accused being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court, filed an appeal under Section 374 of Cr.PC before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, HP, who vide judgment dated 20.8.2011, dismissed the appeal. Hence, this criminal revision petition before this Court. 5. Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate, representing the petitioner vehemently argued that the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence recorded by the Courts below are not sustainable in the eye of law as the same are not based upon the correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the parties and as such, same cannot be allowed to sustain. Mr. Palsra, while referring to the judgments passed by the courts below contended that bare perusal of the impugned judgments clearly suggest that evidence adduced on record by the parties has not been appreciated in its right perspective by the courts below, rather same are based upon conjectures and surmises and as such, same deserve to be quashed and set-aside. Mr. Palsra further argued that both the courts below manifestly fell in grave error while holding the petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the Act because admittedly cheque in question was issued as security and not for discharging any legal liability and as such, judgment of conviction recorded by the courts below cannot be allowed to sustain. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid argument, Mr. Palsra further contended that evidence available on record, nowhere suggests that the complainant was able to prove that cheque in question was issued in order to discharge legal liability, rather petitioner accused by leading cogent and convincing evidence available on record successfully proved that no amount was due to be paid by the accused to the complainant and as such, presumption in favour of the holder as per Section 138 of the Act, was rebutted by the petitioner by giving due explanation. He further stated that there was no writing that petitioner had borrowed 75,000/- from the respondent, rather case of the petitioner accused was that only 20,000/- was taken by him, which was duly paid to the respondent and as such, presumption, if any, in favour of the holder of cheque was wholly rebutted by the petitioner by leading aforesaid evidence. While concluding his arguments. Mr. Palsra further contended that statement of petitioner under Section 313 Cr.PC was not correctly recorded by the court below, wherein the material questions were not put to the petitioner, which goes to the root of the case and admittedly, punishment of six months is excessive and as such, same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Per contra, Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate, appearing for respondent No.1, and Mr. P.M. Negi, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, representing the State, supported the impugned judgments passed by the courts below. Mr. Chandel, while referring to the judgments passed by the courts below vehemently argued that bare perusal of same suggest that same are based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence available on record by the complainant and as such, there is no scope of interference, whatsoever of this Court, especially, in view of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the court below. With a view to refute the contentions having been raised by Mr. Palsra, Mr. Chandel, invited attention of this Court to the pleadings as well as evidence led on record by the complainant to demonstrate that the complainant successfully proved on record that an amount of Rs. 75,000/- was borrowed by the accused and in lieu of the same, he had issued cheque amounting to Rs. 75,000/-. Mr. Chandel, further contended that it is wrong to suggest that both the courts below have misread and misinterpreted the evidence because bare perusal of the judgments passed by the courts below clearly suggest that all the material points, as are being raised at this juncture, have been dealt with very meticulously by the courts below and as such, present petition deserves to be dismissed and quashed. Learned Additional Advocate General reminded this Court of its limited powers while exercising its revisionary powers under Section 397 of the Cr.PC, to re-appreciate the evidence, especially, when it stands duly proved on record that the courts below have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter very meticulously. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in case "State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri" (1999) 2 SCC452, 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." 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well carefully gone through the record 8. True, it is that this Court has very limited powers under Section 397 Cr.PC while exercising its revisionary jurisdiction but in the instant case, where accused has been convicted and sentenced, it would be apt and in the interest of justice to critically examine the statements of the prosecution witnesses solely with a view to ascertain that the judgments passed by learned courts below are not perverse and same are based on correct appreciation of the evidence on record. 9. 9. 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 SCC 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 of 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." 10. Perusal of pleadings as well as evidence led on record by the respective parties clearly proves on record that present petitioner accused had borrowed an amount of Rs. 75,000/- from the complainant and in lieu of the same, he had issued cheque in question. Petitioner accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC specifically admitted the issuance of cheque in favour of the complainant, however, in his statement, he stated that he had only issued cheque as security for repayment of Rs. 20,000/-, which he had actually borrowed from the complainant. He further stated that he had issued blank cheque towards security for repayment of Rs. 20,000/-, which he had actually borrowed from the complainant. He further stated that he had issued blank cheque towards security for repayment of Rs. 20,000/- but this Court during proceedings of the case was unable to lay its hand to any of the document/evidence led on record by the petitioner accused suggestive of the fact that cheque in question was issued as security for repayment of Rs. 20,000/-. But for above statement of petitioner accused, which he made under Section 313 Cr.PC, there is no evidence to substantiate aforesaid stand having been taken by the petitioner accused, whereas the complainant while proving the contents of his complaint, examined himself as CW1 and stated that accused had borrowed an amount of Rs. 75,000/- from him to meet his domestic needs and with a view to discharge his liability, he had issued cheque in question dated 5.7.2007 amounting to Rs. 75,000/- Ext CW1/A in his favour. He further stated that on two occasions, cheque was dishonored. He further stated that he presented the cheque in bank on 7.7.2005 and 11.7.2007 respectively, but on both occasions, same was dishonored on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the accused. He also stated that he got legal notice issued to the accused Ext.CW1/D vide postal receipt i.e. Ext.CW1/D, dated 18.7.2007, which was duly acknowledged vide Ext.CW1/F. He also proved on record that cheque was dishonored vide memo Ext.CW1/A on 7.7.2007 and 11.7.2007. It has also come in the statement of the complainant that even after receipt of legal notice, the petitioner failed to deposit the amount within the stipulated period. Cross examination conducted upon the aforesaid witnesses, nowhere suggests that accused was able to extract anything contrary to what, complainant stated in his examination in chief. Rather careful perusal of the cross examination conducted on this witness/complainant clearly suggests that complainant successfully proved on record that cheque in question was issued in his favour by the petitioner accused in lieu of discharge of his liability to pay the amount in question, which he had borrowed from the complainant. In his cross-examination, he specifically denied the suggestion put to him that accused had only borrowed 20,000/- from him and in lieu of same he had issued blank cheque in his favour. In his cross-examination, he specifically denied the suggestion put to him that accused had only borrowed 20,000/- from him and in lieu of same he had issued blank cheque in his favour. CW1 in his cross examination also denied the suggestion put to him by the defence that there is no financial liability against accused in his favour. 11. This Court after carefully examining the questionnaire put to the complainant in cross examination is in agreement with the findings/observations made by the court below that cross examination on behalf of the accused clearly proves that accused came forward with a case that he had borrowed only Rs. 20,000/- and in lieu of the same, he had issued a blank cheque, which certainly proves his signature on the cheque Ext.CW1/A. Once petitioner accused admitted his signature on cheque Ext.CW1/A while admitting that he had issued blank cheque in favour of the complainant in lieu of his discharge of liability of payment of Rs. 20,000/-, it was sufficient for the courts below to conclude that cheque in question Ext.CW1/A was actually issued by the petitioner accused in favour of the complainant towards the discharge of his liability. As has been observed above, there is no evidence available on record by the accused to substantiate his claim made in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC that he had actually taken Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant and not Rs. 75,000 as is being claimed in the complainant and as such, this Court sees no error, if any, in the aforesaid finding returned by the courts below while concluding that cheque in question was issued by the accused in favour of the complainant in lieu of the discharge of his liability. 12. CW2 Rajiv Sharma, Junior Clerk, C.D. Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. Branch Office Gagal, Tehsil Sadar District Mandi, fully corroborated the version put forth by the complainant by stating that cheque in question was presented twice and same was repeatedly dishonored on account of insufficient funds vide memos Ext.CW1/B and Ext.CW1/C. Cross examination conducted on this witness also nowhere suggests that defence was able to extract anything contrary to what he stated in the examination in chief. 13. Conjoint reading of the aforesaid complainant witnesses clearly suggests that complaint successfully proved on record that accused had borrowed an amount of Rs. 13. Conjoint reading of the aforesaid complainant witnesses clearly suggests that complaint successfully proved on record that accused had borrowed an amount of Rs. 75,000 from the complainant and in lieu of discharge of his liability, he had issued cheque Ext.CW1/A amounting to Rs. 75,000 in the favour of the complainant. CW2 i.e. Bank official successfully proved on record that cheque in question was presented but same was returned on account of insufficient funds and in this regard, memo Ext.CW1/B and Ext.CW1/C clearly proves on record the version put forth by the complainant that after receipt of cheque, he had presented the same to the bank official for encashment. Similarly, perusal of copy of legal notice (Ext.CW1/D), postal receipt (Ext.CW1/E) and acknowledgment (Ext.CW1/F) clearly proves on record that immediately after receipt of memo from the bank, complainant got issued legal notice to the petitioner accused ,which was duly served upon him, but despite that, no payment was made. Hence, this Court sees no reason to differ with the judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below, which definitely appear to be based upon the correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the complainant. 14. This Court after carefully examining the entire evidence led record, has no hesitation to conclude that both the courts below have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter meticulously and complainant successfully proved on record that the petitioner accused had borrowed an amount of Rs. 75,000/- and in lieu of same he had issued the cheque in question. 15. Careful perusal of the judgment passed by the court below suggests that all the issues raised in the appeal have been dealt with carefully. At the risk of repetition, it may be stated that suggestion put to the complainant that accused had only issued cheque of Rs. 20,000/- in favour of the complainant and blank cheque was issued as security, was specifically denied by him and as such, learned courts below rightly did not place any reliance upon the statement having been made by the petitioner accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, in the absence of any supportive evidence, be it oral or documentary. 16. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the judgment having been passed by the courts below and as such, same are upheld. 16. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the judgment having been passed by the courts below and as such, same are upheld. The present petition stands dismissed. Petitioner accused is directed to surrender himself before the learned trial Court forthwith to serve the sentence as awarded by learned trial Court. Needless to say that order dated 21.9.2011, passed by this Court, whereby sentence imposed by the Court below was suspended, shall stand vacated automatically.