JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.PC, is directed against the judgment dated 31.5.2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge, Mandi District Mandi, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2015, affirming the judgment and order of conviction dated 8.4.2015, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., in Criminal Complaint No. 217-I/12/113-III/12, whereby the petitioner-accused has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- to the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the “Act"). Learned court below further held that in case of non-payment of compensation, petitioner accused shall be further liable to suffer imprisonment for two months. 2. Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that the respondent (complainant) preferred a complaint in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., against the petitioner-accused under Section 138 of the Act, alleging therein that the petitioner-accused issued cheque bearing No. 697824 dated 7.5.2012, amounting to Rs. 3 lacs, in favour of the complainant with a view to discharge his legal liability. As per the respondent complainant, petitioner accused had taken aforesaid amount for purchasing the land for the complainant. Since no land was got purchased by the petitioner-accused to the complainant, petitioner accused on insistence of the complainant, issued aforesaid cheque amounting to Rs. 3 lacs, drawn at Indian Bank Branch, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. However, fact remains that the aforesaid cheque was dishonoured on its presentation, as a result of which, respondentcomplainant was compelled to issue legal notice calling upon the petitioner accused to make payment good within the stipulated period. Since the petitioner failed to make the payment in terms of the aforesaid notice, respondent/complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings before the competent Court of law under Section 138 of the Act. 3. The 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. 3. The 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, Mandi District Mandi, H.P., however, fact remains that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 31.5.2016, dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner accused, as a result of which the impugned judgment dated 8.4.2015, passed by the learned trial Court, came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, present petitioner approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking his acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below. 5. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it may be noticed that on 20.8.2016, substantive sentence imposed by the learned trial Court was suspended by this Court subject to petitioner’s furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-. However, fact remains that the petitioner failed to furnish the personal bonds within the stipulated time and this Court vide order dated 7.10.2016, granted further time to comply with the order dated 20.8.2016. On 17.3.2017, learned counsel for the parties stated before the Court that there is a possibility of amicable settlement inter-se the parties and as such, this Court deemed it fit to summon the parties before the Court on 31.3.2017. However, fact remains that petitioner accused despite repeated orders passed by this Court failed to appear before this Court and ultimately, on 26th May, 2017, petitioner appeared before this Court and sought time to make entire payment in terms of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. On 26th May, 2017, it was specifically recorded in the order that in case amount is not deposited or paid on or before the next date of hearing, matter shall be heard and decided on merits on the next date of hearing. 6. Today, during the proceedings of the case, Mr. On 26th May, 2017, it was specifically recorded in the order that in case amount is not deposited or paid on or before the next date of hearing, matter shall be heard and decided on merits on the next date of hearing. 6. Today, during the proceedings of the case, Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel, Advocate, representing the petitioner contended that despite repeated calls, petitioner is not coming forward to impart instructions and as such, he is not in a position to state whether petitioner is ready and willing to make payment in terms of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner, it would be in the interest of justice in case matter is decided on merits. Accordingly, this Court with the consent of learned counsel for the parties proceeded to decide this case at the admission stage. 7. Mr. Yogesh, while inviting attention of this Court to the impugned judgment of conviction recorded by the courts below contended that the impugned judgment 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 respective parties and as such, same deserve to be quashed and set-aside. Mr. Yogesh, further contended that bare perusal of the impugned judgment suggests that evidence led on record by the respective parties, has not been read in its right perspective by the learned courts below, as a result of which, erroneous findings have come on record to the detriment of the petitioner-accused, who is an innocent person. Learned counsel further contended that it stands duly proved on record that cheque in question was issued as a security and as such, there was no occasion for the courts below to hold the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel representing the petitioner accused prayed that the impugned judgments of conviction recorded by the court below may be quashed and set-aside being contrary to evidence available on record as well as law. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Digvijay Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent-complainant refuted the aforesaid submissions having been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner accused. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Digvijay Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent-complainant refuted the aforesaid submissions having been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner accused. He contended that there is no scope of interference whatsoever, of this Court, especially, in view of the concurrent finding of facts and law recorded by the court below and as such, present petition deserves to be dismissed. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the respondent, made this Court to travel through the impugned judgments passed by the courts below vis-à-vis material adduced on record by the respective parties to demonstrate that the complainant successfully proved on record that cheque in question was issued by the petitioner-accused in order to discharge his lawful liability and as such, there is no illegality in the impugned judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below. While refuting contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that cheque in question was issued as a security, Mr. Digvijay, contended that bare perusal of the statement having been made by the petitioner under Section 313 suggests that as per his own version, he had issued cheque amounting to Rs. 80,000/- and there is nothing in his statement, from where it can be inferred that cheque in question was issued as a security. He further contended that if for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that cheque in question was issued as security, there is nothing on record from where, it can be inferred that qua what purpose, petitioner had issued cheque as a security. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Digvijay Singh, contended that bare perusal of material available on record proves beyond doubt that respondent complainant successfully proved all ingredients as contained under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and as such, judgment of conviction recorded by the court below deserves to be upheld. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record. 10. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record. 10. Perusal of impugned judgment of conviction recorded by the court below further upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, nowhere persuade this Court to agree with the contention of the learned counsel representing the petitioner that there is mis-reading, misrepresentation and misappreciation of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, rather this Court after having carefully gone through the impugned judgment vis-à-vis evidence available on record, has no hesitation to conclude that both the courts below have very meticulously dealt with each and every aspect of the matter and there is no scope left for this Court to differ with the finding recorded by the courts below. 11. The petitioner accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC, categorically stated that he had handed over a blank signed cheque to the complainant only for a sum of Rs. 80,000/- which was payable to him. Aforesaid admission/statement made under Section 313 Cr.PC itself belies the stand taken by the learned counsel representing the petitioner accused that cheque in question was issued as a security. Since petitioner accused has himself admitted that he had issued blank cheque amounting to Rs. 80,000/-, which was due towards the respondentcomplainant, there cannot be any dispute, if any, with regard to the issuance of cheque as well as signatures of the accused upon the same. Similarly, there is no allegation of tempering, if any, made by the complainantrespondent while presenting the cheque in the concerned bank. Both the courts below, after having carefully perused the cheque Ext.CW1/A, have found that the cheque in question was amounting to Rs. 3 lacs not Rs. 80,000/- , as claimed by the petitioner accused in this statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. Since factum with regard to the issuance of cheque stands admitted by the petitioner accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, both the courts below rightly held the respondent complainant entitled to the Rs. 3 lac, as was duly filled up in the cheque admittedly issued by the petitioner accused. 12. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that there is nothing on record, from where it can be inferred that allegation, if any, of tempering in the cheque was ever leveled by the petitioner-accused. 3 lac, as was duly filled up in the cheque admittedly issued by the petitioner accused. 12. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that there is nothing on record, from where it can be inferred that allegation, if any, of tempering in the cheque was ever leveled by the petitioner-accused. There is nothing in the statement of the petitioner-accused under Section 313 of the Cr.PC, from where it can be concluded that cheque in question was issued as a security, rather petitioner accused himself admitted in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC that he had issued cheque amounting to Rs. 80,000/-, which he had owed to the respondent-complainant. In the aforesaid statement made under Section 313 of the Cr.PC petitioner accused also admitted factum with regard to the dishonoring of the cheque. Apart from his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, petitioner-accused did not lead any evidence in support of his claim. 13. Complainant while proving contents of the complaint appeared as CW1 and categorically stated that accused offered her to sell some agricultural land and accordingly, she advanced a sum of Rs. 3 lacs to the petitioner-accused for fixing the land deal. She further stated that aforesaid amount of Rs. 3 lacs was advanced to the accused on 18.1.2011 and when she asked for her money, the accused handed over a cheque Ext.CW1/A, which was ultimately dishonoured on its presentation. Respondentcomplainant also proved on record memos Exts.CW1B & C, issued by the bank. It has also come in her instatement that she got legal notice Ext.CW1/D served upon the accused and receipts thereof are placed on record as Exts.CW1/E and 1/F. Apart from above, petitioner also proved on record acknowledgement (Ext.CW1/G) and registered envelops Ext.CW1/H, of the aforesaid legal notice. 14. Careful perusal of cross-examination conducted on this witness nowhere suggests that defence was able to extract anything contrary to what she stated in the cross-examination. Complainant specifically stated in her cross examination that no receipt was executed with regard to handing over of Rs. 3 lacs. She categorically denied that accused owed only Rs. 80,000/- to her and blank cheque signed by the accused was handed over to her. 15. Complainant specifically stated in her cross examination that no receipt was executed with regard to handing over of Rs. 3 lacs. She categorically denied that accused owed only Rs. 80,000/- to her and blank cheque signed by the accused was handed over to her. 15. After having carefully perused the evidence adduced on record by the respondent complainant, it is quite evident that cheque in question was issued by the petitioner accused in favour of the complainant, who presented the same in Indian Bank, Branch Mandi, who vide memo Ext.CW1/C returned the same with remarks “funds insufficient”. Perusal of intimation memo Ext.CW1/B issued by the PNB dated 25.6.212 clearly suggests that cheque in question allegedly issued by the petitioner accused was deposited by the respondent complainant in the Punjab National Bank. Similarly, perusal of Ext.CW1/G clearly suggests that legal notice got issued by the respondent complainant was received by the accused at his residential address. Respondent complainant took all necessary steps as is required under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for realization of her money from the petitioner-accused, who despite legal notice failed to make the payment good within the stipulated period. 16. In the case at hand though accused took specific stand that he had issued a blank signed cheque to the complainant and he had only owed Rs. 80,000 to the complainant, not the cheque amount as claimed by the respondent complainant, but unfortunately there is nothing available on record to substantiate aforesaid stand taken by the petitioner-accused. Interestingly, in the instant case, neither accused himself stepped into the witness box to clarify aforesaid aspect, nor examined any other witness and as such, both the courts below rightly held that as per Sections 139 and 118 of the Act, there is presumption that cheque was issued in the discharge of legal liability As per, Section 139, “it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability” 17. 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. 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 carefully examining 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 judgment, and as such, there is no occasion, whatsoever, to exercise the revisional power. 18. Consequently this Court, after having perused the material available on record, sees no reason to differ with the finding recorded by the courts below that complainant successfully established on record that cheque in question Ext.CW1/A was issued by the petitioner-accused in order to discharge his liability. Similarly, this Court finds that respondent complainant after having complied with all necessary/codal formalities as required under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, filed complaint within the stipulated period as provided under Section 142 (b) of the Act, as such, there is no illegality and infirmity in the judgments passed by the courts below and same are accordingly upheld. Similarly, this Court finds that respondent complainant after having complied with all necessary/codal formalities as required under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, filed complaint within the stipulated period as provided under Section 142 (b) of the Act, as such, there is no illegality and infirmity in the judgments passed by the courts below and same are accordingly upheld. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed and the 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 20.8.2016, passed by this Court, whereby sentence imposed by the Court below was suspended, shall stand vacated automatically. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.