ORDER : The applicant has preferred this criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment dated 11-5-2017 passed by Additional Session Judge, Indore in criminal appeal No. 268/2016 affirming the judgment dated 14-6-2016 delivered by JMFC, Tarana, District-Ujjain in Criminal Case No. 769/2013 convicting the applicant for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to undergo six months R.I. with compensation amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- each and in default of payment of compensation, six months additional R.I. 2. The facts of the case leading to this revision petition are that the non-applicant/complainant filed an complaint before the Court of JMFC, Tarana alleging that the applicant/accused had taken Rs. 4 lakhs on credit for his personal need and gave two cheques bearing No. 008056 and 008060 amounting to Rs. 2 lakhs each of State Bank of India, Nayapura Branch, Tarana with the assurance that the cheques will be encashed, when they will be presented in the Bank. When the non-applicant/complainant presented the cheques through his Bank, the same were returned to him with an endorsement “insufficient fund”. On 25-7-2013, the complainant sent notice through his counsel by registered post, which was served upon the applicant/accused, but he did not pay the amount, due to which, non-applicant/complainant filed a private complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the applicant, which was registered on 25-9-2013. 3. After taking evidence of both the parties, the trial Court has held the applicant guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act convicting him for the period of six months R.I. It was also directed him to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- for each cheque by way of compensation to the complainant. An appeal was preferred against the aforesaid judgment, which was also dismissed, hence the present petition has been filed before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued at length and submitted that the applicant has wrongly been convicted whereas he has not committed any offence. It is further submitted that the Courts below committed error in not properly appreciating the evidence and correctness of the findings, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the applicant has alternatively submitted that the applicant has already deposited the compensation amount. He is in jail since 6-11-2017. It is further submitted that the Courts below committed error in not properly appreciating the evidence and correctness of the findings, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the applicant has alternatively submitted that the applicant has already deposited the compensation amount. He is in jail since 6-11-2017. In Criminal Case No. 768/2013 also, he has been convicted for the same offence by the JMFC, Tarana vide judgment dated 14-6-2016, and against which, he has filed criminal appeal before the Session Court, which was also dismissed affirming the conviction and sentence passed against him. After that, he has preferred Criminal Revision No. 1261/2017 against the aforesaid judgment of his conviction, which is pending before this Court. In the aforesaid case, he is in jail since 16-9-2017. He has also deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- each in both the cases, therefore, it may be directed that his sentence in both the cases shall run concurrently. 5. Learned counsel for the non-applicant/complainant submitted that after due appreciation of evidence, learned Courts below have found the applicant guilty for the aforesaid offence and no interference is called for in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. 6. From perusal of the records, it is found that earlier the applicant had filed Criminal Revision Nos. 672/2017 and 673/2017 against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 268/2016 and 269/2016 by the learned Appellate Court and the alleged criminal revisions were dismissed as withdrawn on 9-8-2017, therefore, second revision against the same judgment is not maintainable. In these circumstances, the applicant is not entitled for the relief to run the sentence concurrently in both the cases, therefore, the present revision is liable to be rejected. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussions, present Criminal Revision is dismissed by affirming the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court. 8. C.C. as per rules.