ORDER : This matter is listed for admission this day and also it was listed on 2.3.2020 and the matter was called twice on 2.3.2020 and there was no representation. However this Court has given one more opportunity to the petitioner’s counsel to place the material for having deposited 50% of the amount, vide order dated 23.7.2018 and also the order dated 13.8.2019 and no material is placed before the Court and also the counsel is continuously absent before this Court. 2. On a perusal of the records, it discloses that proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was initiated against this revision petitioner and the complainant in order to substantiate the case, examined as PW.1 and also accused examined himself as DW.1. The trial Court in C.C.No.674/2017 having considered both oral and documentary evidence and also particularly the admission made by the accused, came to the conclusion that the complainant made out the case and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the accused has preferred Crl.A.No.16/2018. The first appellate Court also considered the records and on re-appreciation of the evidence available on record, concurred with the judgment of conviction. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the trial Court and as well as the first appellate Court, the present revision petition is filed. 4. On perusal of the grounds of revision petition, the only contention taken in the revision petition is that, the complainant has misused the money lending licence and also question of issuance of cheque dated 25.2.2015 does not arise for consideration, because the alleged transaction took place on 27.6.2014. The grounds urged in the revision petition are not in consonance with the evidence. The scope of the revision is very limited. The revisional Court can exercise its jurisdiction only if the judgment is manifestly illegal and also if the Court overlooks the evidence available on record. Only under such circumstances this Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction. 5. The accused who has been examined before the trial Court took the defence that cheques were issued in the name of accused but presented for the complainant’s account in order to withdraw the money in the name of the accused. The amount drawn by the complainant was kept for themselves without giving it to the accused. 5. The accused who has been examined before the trial Court took the defence that cheques were issued in the name of accused but presented for the complainant’s account in order to withdraw the money in the name of the accused. The amount drawn by the complainant was kept for themselves without giving it to the accused. Hence the trial Court made an observation that if at all such is the fact, the accused must have been taken necessary action against the alleged act of the complainant. No such effort was made to collect the documents. The only defence that no such payment was made by the complainant and question of issuance of cheque does not arise. But he did not rebut the evidence of the complainant to explain the same. Hence the trial Court considering the material available on record, came to the conclusion that the defence of the accused has not been probablized. 6. The first appellate Court also in the judgment re-appreciated the evidence available on record and in paragraph No.18 of the judgment discussed the material available on record. With regard to the statutory period as well as the issuance of cheque has not been disputed and only contended that the cheque amount was encashed by the complainant even though cheque was issued in the name of the accused and when such being the case, the accused did not probablize his defence and also not rebutted the evidence of the complainant under section 139 and so also under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and in detail discussed by both the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. Hence this Court find no reasons to admit the revision petition, since did not find any manifestly illegality in the order of the trial Court, so also in the order of the first appellate Court. Hence, the revision cannot be entertained. 7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The revision petition is dismissed.