JUDGMENT : 1. By way of present application, applicant has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 29.06.2019 passed by the Learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Kalol, Dist-Gandhinagar in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2018 as well as judgment and order dated 19.03.2018 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalol, Dist-Gandhinagar in Criminal Case No.73 of 2014. 2. Brief facts of the present case are as under: Present applicant is original accused and respondent No.2 is the original complainant in the aforesaid case. The applicant is old aged widow lady and is suffering from B.P. and other diseases. The husband of the applicant had expired in the year 1993. The applicant has five daughters and one son, out of them, four daughters are married and one daughter and one son are unmarried and she is having their responsibilities. That she is holding land bearing survey No.209 admeasuring Hec.are 1-14-32 sq. mtrs., in the sim of Mauje Ramnagar, Taluka Kalol (for short 'the disputed land') and it is running in the names of the applicant and her son Sanjay Ramabhai. Since the applicant was in need of money, they came to the complainant and talked about sale of the land qua their shares. Therefore, the complainant took advice his advocate and as per advice, it was not possible to purchase the land without block division. When this fact was brought to the notice of the applicant, she agreed that she would make block division/partition and will clear the title and thereafter, execute sale-deed of the disputed land. It was agreed to sell the disputed land to the complainant at sale consideration of Rs.13,00,000/-(Rupees thirteen lacs only and after accepting Rs.9,00,000/- from complainant, the applicant and her son executed an agreement to sell dated 5/12/2012 before the Notary. 3. That, the applicant had issued a cheque No.050245 to the complainant for the amount of Rs.9 Lacs dated 17.9.2013 of the Kalol Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd., Kalol. The Complainant had submitted the said cheque for encashment in his account of Bank of Baroda, Kalol branch, but on the same day, the said cheque was returned with the endorsement 'Today's balance insufficient' on 19.09.2013. Therefore, the complainant informed the same to the applicant. 4. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 complainant issued Regd. A.D. Notice dated 19.10.2013 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act to the applicant, through his advocate, which was received on 22.10.2013. Therefore, the complainant informed the same to the applicant. 4. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 complainant issued Regd. A.D. Notice dated 19.10.2013 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act to the applicant, through his advocate, which was received on 22.10.2013. Applicant, after receipt of the notice, did not reply, nor manage to pay the amount, demanded by the complainant in his notice, without prescribed time. 5. Therefore, the complainant filed Criminal Case No.73/2014 in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalol, under Section 138 of the NI Act, for his legal dues of Rs.9 Lacs against the applicant. Thereafter, the Ld. Magistrate issued summons vide order dated 04.01.2014 and the case was tried by the Ld. Magistrate. 6. That, after recording evidence and hearing the parties, Ld. Magistrate was pleased to convict the applicant and award the sentence, as aforesaid, vide judgment and order dated 19.03.2018. 7. That, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 19.03.2018 rendered by the Ld. Magistrate convicting the applicant, the applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2018 before the Ld. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalol on 16.04.2018. 8. That, applicant states that applicant during pendency of the appeal has made payment of amount of Rs.90,000/- before the Ld. Appellate court, vide receipt dated 25.02.2019. 9. That, after hearing both the sides, the Ld. Appellate Court has been pleased to partly allow the appeal of the applicant vide impugned order dated 29.06.2019 imposing sentence of six months and fine of Rs.9 Lacs, as aforesaid. 10. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 29.06.2019 partly allowing the appeal of the applicant, the applicant begs to file present revision. 11. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned advocate for the respondent No.2 as well as learned APP for the respondent-State. 12. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the impugned judgment and order partly allowing the appeal of the applicant is improper, unjust, illegal, erroneous, against principles of law and facts on record and hence it deserves to be quashed and set aside. That, the conclusion arrived at by the Ld. Trial Court and confirmed by the Ld. Appellate Court are contrary to the facts, law and evidence on record, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. That, the Ld. Trial Court and Ld. That, the conclusion arrived at by the Ld. Trial Court and confirmed by the Ld. Appellate Court are contrary to the facts, law and evidence on record, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. That, the Ld. Trial Court and Ld. Appellate Court erred in not properly appreciating and relying upon the evidence on record produced by the applicant. That both the courts erred in not considering the facts and documentary evidence on record. That the Ld. Trial Court erred in not considering that the depositions/affidavit of the applicant and other documents. That Ld. Magistrate passed the order without considering the evidence and the provisions of the NI Act. That it is nowhere stated by the respondent No.2 in the complaint, notice Exh.21 and examination in chief Exh.17 that he has received the cheque Exh.18 towards his legal dues. That no demand for specific amount has been made in the notice Exh.21. Thus, the notice does not attract the criminal provisions of the NI Act. That no witness has been cited in the Banakhat Exh.24 and it is not registered before the office of the Sub Registrar and as to how the amount of Rs.9 Lacs has been paid to the applicant is not coming on the record and there are no receipts for payment of the same. That the ink with which the accused has put signature in the cheque and other writings are different. That both the Courts have failed to consider that there is no evidence to prove that the outstanding amount of the complainant is legal, however, the applicant was convicted. That both the Courts have not taken into consideration the defense of the applicant raised in the cross examination. That no any evidence has come on record, as stated in the impugned order by the Ld. Magistrate. That both the Courts have not properly considered the arguments advanced by the applicant. That the Ld. Magistrate has misinterpreted the evidence produced before him. That the Ld. Appellate Court erred in relying upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court without considering that the facts of said cases are not applicable to the present case. That applicant is old aged widow lady. The applicant, during pendency of the appeal, has made payment of Rs.90,000/- before the Ld. Appellate court, vide receipt dated 25.02.2019. That the Ld. Appellate Court erred in relying upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court without considering that the facts of said cases are not applicable to the present case. That applicant is old aged widow lady. The applicant, during pendency of the appeal, has made payment of Rs.90,000/- before the Ld. Appellate court, vide receipt dated 25.02.2019. That, the applicant is cultivating the land through Bhagiya and getting some portion of the income from the agriculture. There is no other male earning member in the family of the applicant and hence she is not having any other income. Even otherwise and impugned judgments and orders are unjust, improper, bad in the eye of law and against the provisions of law and deserved to be quashed and set aside. 13. Learned APP for the respondent-State has requested to pass necessary orders as the dispute in the present application is between the private parties. 14. Learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the first and the main order of Criminal Revision 926 of 2019 was passed on 08.08.2019 after entering into merits as there was prima facie offence made out and therefore conditional bail was granted to the accused to pay the full amount and since then it is completely not complied and breach of the conditions imposed by this Court. That more than enough and sufficient time as well as liberty is given to the accused and she has taken undue advantage by lingering the matter and had misused the court’s liberty at large. That concurrent findings of conviction by both the lower courts are on merits, facts, circumstances and evidence which cannot be unseen. The accused has admitted the offence of Section 138 under the Negotiable Instruments Act in written and documentary evidence which is placed on records. Leaned advocate has drawn attention of this Court in respect of depositions of the parties, documentary evidence on record and urged that the accused has admitted that she had taken an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- from the complainant and in connection of the same, the said disputed cheque was given. Learned advocate Mr. Barot for the complainant requested this Court to cancel the bail of the accused with a condition to deposit the amount of Rs.7 Lakhs. Learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has requested to dismiss present application. 15. Learned advocate Mr. Barot for the complainant requested this Court to cancel the bail of the accused with a condition to deposit the amount of Rs.7 Lakhs. Learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has requested to dismiss present application. 15. Before deciding this revision application, first of all, this Court may consider the below mentioned provisions: Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are set out herein below for convenience:- “138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. —Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless— (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation.— For the purposes of this section, “debt or other liability” means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.] 139. Explanation.— For the purposes of this section, “debt or other liability” means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.] 139. Presumption in favour of holder.—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.” 9. The object of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to infuse credibility to negotiable instruments including cheques and to encourage and promote the use of negotiable instruments including cheques in financial transactions. The penal provision of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is intended to be a deterrent to callous issuance of negotiable instruments such as cheques without serious intention to honour the promise implicit in the issuance of the same. 16. The short question before this court is (1) whether a revisional court can, in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction, interfere with an order of conviction in absence of any jurisdictional error or error of law; (2) Whether the payee of a cheque is disentitled to the benefit of the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, of a cheque duly drawn, having been issued in discharge of a debtor or other liability? 17. The trial Court, on analysis of the evidence adduced by the respective parties arrived at the factual finding that the respondent-accused had duly issued the cheque in question for Rs. 9 lacs in favour of the appellant-complainant , in discharge of a debt or liability, the cheque was presented to the bank for payment within a period of its validity, but the cheque had been returned unpaid for want of sufficient funds in the account of the respondent-accused in the bank, on which the cheque was drawn. Statutory Notice of dishonour of the cheque was duly issued to which there was no response from the respondent-accused. 18. The first appellate court confirmed the factual findings. The trial Court and the Appellate Court arrived at the specific concurrent factual finding that the cheque had admittedly been signed by the respondent-accused . The Trial Court and the Appellate Court rejected the plea of the respondent-accused that the appellant-complainant had misused a blank signed cheque made over by the respondent-accused to the appellant-complainant for obtaining loan or signature of the accused was taken in a blank cheque. 19. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court rejected the plea of the respondent-accused that the appellant-complainant had misused a blank signed cheque made over by the respondent-accused to the appellant-complainant for obtaining loan or signature of the accused was taken in a blank cheque. 19. It appears that vide Ex. 17, the complainant was examined before the trial court wherein he has clearly stated that as the accused was in need of money, she requested to sell the land in question of her share to the complainant. On advice received by the complainant through his learned advocate, land was not permissible to be purchased by him except block division. The accused shown her willingness for block division of the land in question and clear the title of the land, and thereafter, to execute a sale deed in favour of the complainant and with this condition, the complainant agreed to purchase the land in question at the consideration of Rs. 13 lacs from the respondent-accused and paid Rs. 9 lacs to her. An agreement to sell was executed by her under her signature on stamp paper of Rs. 100/- along with her son Patel Sanjaykumar Ramabhai. Thereafter, in the first week of September, the complainant requested for execution of the sale deed of the land in question but it was replied by the accused-respondent that other co-sharers of the land were not cooperating her in making block division of the land and it was very difficult for making block division of the land of her share. It was assured by the respondent-accused that she would return back the amount received by her. It was stated on oath by the complainant in his evidence before the trial court that on 10th September 2013, respondent-accused along with her son came to his residence and issued a cheque dated 17.09.2013 for amount of Rs. 9 lacs of the Kalol Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited, Kalol under her signature. The complainant was requested to fill up the cheque, and therefore, he filled up necessary details in the cheque. 9 lacs of the Kalol Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited, Kalol under her signature. The complainant was requested to fill up the cheque, and therefore, he filled up necessary details in the cheque. It was also assured by the respondent-accused that as and when cheque would be deposited with the bank, it would be honoured and thereafter, on 17th September 2013, he deposited the cheque in his account with the Bank of Baroda, Kalol Branch, but it was dishonoured by the bank on 19th September 2013 with a written memo with an endorsement of “Today's opening balance insufficient”. Thus, the complainant communicated the respondent-accused about returning cheque by the bank authority and requested to clear his amount. He also issued a legal notice through his advocate by RPAD on 19th October 2013 to the accused, which was duly received by her on 22nd October 2013, however, no payment was made by the respondent-accused nor the notice was responded and thereafter, this complaint was filed by the complainant. He has identified the cheque under the signature of the respondent. Written memo received by him from the bank authority, notice issued by him through his advocate, receipt of RPAD as well as acknowledgment slip of the notice issued by him. 20. It appears from the cross-examination that complainant was frequently visiting Kalol Court for attending his another case pending before the court and the accused-respondent was known to him since last 10-12 years. Of course, no money transactions were made by her with him previously. There was no talk with the accused to make accommodation for Buffalo. He has denied that at that time, agreement to sell Ex. 24 was prepared. He has denied that he was engaged in the business of money lending. He has further denied that there was no agreement to sell with the respondent-accused nor any cheque was issued by her. It is further denied that with a view to obtain loan by the complainant, in blank cheque, her signature was taken by the complainant. He has stated that upto December 2012, Rs. 9 lacs was paid by him in cash to the accused. He has further denied that cheque given by respondent-accused was not deposited by him within time limit. He has further denied that no legal notice was issued by him. It is not accepted that however Rs. He has stated that upto December 2012, Rs. 9 lacs was paid by him in cash to the accused. He has further denied that cheque given by respondent-accused was not deposited by him within time limit. He has further denied that no legal notice was issued by him. It is not accepted that however Rs. 3 lacs were paid by the respondent-accused though adding interest amount, he filled up cheque. It is denied that bank account was opened by him in the Nagrik Bank, Kalol on behalf of the respondent-accused and cheque book was received by him from the respondent-accused . He has further denied that no cash amount was paid by him to the respondent-accused and by obtaining false cheque from the respondent-accused , false complaint was filed and there was no signature of the respondent-accused in the cheque. 21. Original cheque for Rs. 9 lacs of the Kalol Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited dated 17th September 2013 issued under the signature of the respondent-accused was produced vide Exh. 18; depositing the cheque of the Kalol Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited with the Bank of Baroda in the account of the complainant was produced vide Exh. 19; written memo dated 19th September 2013 of the cheque from the Kalol Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited with an endorsement of “Today's opening balance insufficient” was produced vide Exh. 20; Notice issued by the complainant through his advocate by RPAD on 19th October 2013 was produced vide Ex. 21; receipt issued by the Postal department on 19th October 2013 was produced vide Exh. 22; acknowledgment slip under the signature of the respondent-accused with the seal of the Postal Department was produced vide Exh. 23 and agreement to sell executed between the complainant and respondent-accused and his son namely Sanjaykumar Ramabhai under the signatures of the respective parties was produced vide Exh. 24. 22. One witness namely Indravadan Devshankar Nayak was examined by the respondent-accused before the trial Court vide Exh. 36 wherein he has stated that both the parties were known to him. The complainant had given Rs. 1 lac in the year 2010-11, and thereafter, given another Rs. 1 lac. This fact was informed by the complainant himself and except this, he has no knowledge. 36 wherein he has stated that both the parties were known to him. The complainant had given Rs. 1 lac in the year 2010-11, and thereafter, given another Rs. 1 lac. This fact was informed by the complainant himself and except this, he has no knowledge. In the cross-examination from the complainant side, he has denied that under the instructions of the accused, he was making false evidence He has admitted in his cross-examination that any another money transactions carried out between the parties except Rs. 2 lacs, he has no knowledge. He has further no knowledge about executing of any written agreement to sell for the amount of Rs. 9 lacs. 23. From the evidence of the witness examined by the respondent-accused , case of the prosecution is supported that money transaction was carried out between the parties. An agreement to sell of the land in question was executed before the Notary on 5th December 2012 and it appears that photographs of the parties as well as their signatures are never disputed except in the cross examination of the complainant. 24. Before the learned Additional Sessions Court for the first time argument was advanced by the respondent-accused that it was not a legal debt of the amount shown in the agreement to sell but this amount was received by her son and cheque might have been issued in support of the agreement to sell. The liability of his son for his share of Rs. 4.50 lacs was raised before the first appellate court by the respondent-accused , which cannot be considered by the court. Defence raised by the respondent-accused that her liability may be to the extent of Rs. 4.50 lacs raised before the first appellate court was rightly dismissed by the court. The legality of the notice as contended by the respondent-accused cannot be believed because if we consider the notice Exh.21, specific amount was demanded by the complainant and requested to pay the amount within the time limitation. It is nothing on record that any amount of Rs. 3 lacs was paid in cash by the respondent-accused to the complainant, and therefore, defence raised by her is rightly refused by the court below. Further defence of non-registration of the agreement to sell Ex.24 was not legal and proper so far as the present case is concerned. It is nothing on record that any amount of Rs. 3 lacs was paid in cash by the respondent-accused to the complainant, and therefore, defence raised by her is rightly refused by the court below. Further defence of non-registration of the agreement to sell Ex.24 was not legal and proper so far as the present case is concerned. It is clearly proved by the complainant that on account of legal debt, a cheque dated 17.09.2013 of Rs. 9 lacs was issued by the respondent-accused , which was returned back with an endorsement of “Today's opening balance insufficient” by the Bank of Baroda. 25. It is well settled that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court does not, in the absence of perversity, upset concurrent factual findings. It is not for the Revisional Court to reanalyse and reinterpret the evidence on record. 26. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Southern Sales and Services and Others vs. Sauermilch Design and Handels GMBH, reported in (2008) 14 SCC 457 has held that the revisional court will not interfere even if a wrong order is passed by a court having jurisdiction, in the absence of a jurisdictional error. 27. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 16 has held that Section 139 introduces an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof and shifts the onus on the accused. The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a presumption of law, as distinguished from presumption of facts. Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of innocence, which requires the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The obligation on the prosecution may be discharged with the help of presumptions of law and presumptions of fact unless the accused adduces evidence showing the reasonable possibility of the non-existence of the presumed fact. 28. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of In Laxmi Dyechem vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. Reported in (2012) 13 SCC 375 , has reiterated that in view of Section 139, it has to be presumed that a cheque was issued in discharge of a debt or other liability but the presumption could be rebutted by adducing evidence. The burden of proof was however on the person who wanted to rebut the presumption. Reported in (2012) 13 SCC 375 , has reiterated that in view of Section 139, it has to be presumed that a cheque was issued in discharge of a debt or other liability but the presumption could be rebutted by adducing evidence. The burden of proof was however on the person who wanted to rebut the presumption. This Court held “however, this presumption coupled with the object of Chapter XVII of the Act leads to the conclusion that by countermanding payment of a post dated cheque, a party should not be allowed to get away from the penal provision of Section 138 of the Act”. 29. In case of Kumar Exports vs. Sharma Carpets, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 513 , Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that there is a presumption that every negotiable instrument duly executed, is for discharge of a debt or liability, but the presumption is rebuttable by proving the contrary. In the facts and circumstances of the case it was found that the cheque in question was towards advance for purchase of carpets, which were in fact not sold by the payee of the cheque to the drawer, as proved from the deposition of an official of the Sales Tax Department, who stated that the payee had admitted that he had not sold the carpets. 30. Here it is not the case of the respondent-accused that she either signed the cheque or parted with it under any threat or coercion. Nor is it the case of the respondent-accused that the unfilled signed cheque had been stolen. The existence of a fiduciary relationship between the payee of a cheque and its drawer, would not disentitle the payee to the benefit of the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of evidence of exercise of undue influence or coercion. Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt. 31. Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt. 31. In the absence of any finding that the cheque in question was not signed by the respondent-accused or not voluntarily made over to the payee and in the absence of any evidence with regard to the circumstances in which a blank signed cheque had been given to the appellant-complainant , it may reasonably be presumed that the cheque was filled in by the appellant-complainant being the payee in the presence of the respondent-accused being the drawer, at her request and/or with her acquiescence. 32. In considered opinion of this Court, the Trial Court as well as first Appellate Court have committed no error in rejecting plea raised by the respondent-accused that blank cheque was received by the complainant to obtain the loan from the bank. 33. Present application stands dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 29.06.2019 passed by the Learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Kalol, Dist-Gandhinagar in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2018 as well as judgment and order dated 19.03.2018 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalol, Dist-Gandhinagar in Criminal Case No.73 of 2014 stands confirmed. Notice stands discharged. 34. Interim relief granted by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Umesh A. Trivedi) on 08.08.2019 stands vacated forthwith. 35. R & P be sent back to the concerned Trial Court. ORDER IN CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION 36. In view of the order passed in Criminal Revision Application No.926 of 2019, present application stands disposed of accordingly. FURTHER ORDER IN CRIMINAL REVISON APPLICATION 37. Learned advocate for the applicant requests to continue interim relief, granted by this Court to approach the Higher Forum with a view to challenge this order. 38. Considering the facts of the case that however, undertaking was passed by the applicant/accused before this Court for depositing an amount of Rs.7 Lakhs and time to time, her prayer for depositing such amount was extended by this Court, however, the applicant/accused has not complied with the order. Thus, there is no substance in the request made by the applicant. Therefore, request to continue the interim relief granted by this Court cannot be extended more. Thus, there is no substance in the request made by the applicant. Therefore, request to continue the interim relief granted by this Court cannot be extended more. Hence, request of the learned advocate for the applicant stands rejected.