ORDER : 1. This criminal revision case is preferred by the petitioner/appellant/accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 30-6-2015 in Crl.A. No.55 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for trial of Communal Offence Cases cum VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, questioning the enhancement of sentence i.e. raising the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.9,00,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 3 months. 2. The case of the revision petitioner - accused in brief was that the 1st respondent filed a private complaint against him for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘NI Act’) alleging that the accused approached the complainant for a hand loan of Rs.9,00,000/- on 15-12-2007 and the complainant advanced the said amount, the accused executed an undertaking letter promising to repay the money within 3 months, but failed to repay the said amount and dodged the matter on one pretext or other. On repeated demands the accused issued a cheque bearing no 186962 dated 25-11-2009 for Rs.9,00,000/- drawn on Dena Bank, Saroor Nagar branch, Hyderabad towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. The cheque was returned unpaid with a memo for the reason of “funds insufficient” in the account of accused. Thereafter, the complainant issued statutory notices and filed the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant, the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad took cognizance of the case and issued process. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the XV Additional Judge cum XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, numbered as CC No. 134 of 2011 and tried by him. After considering the evidence on record, the trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three (3) months for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. Challenging the conviction, after payment of fine amount, the accused preferred the appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. The same was decided by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for trial of Communal Offence Cases cum VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, vide Crl.A. No.55 of 2012. Challenging the conviction, after payment of fine amount, the accused preferred the appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. The same was decided by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for trial of Communal Offence Cases cum VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, vide Crl.A. No.55 of 2012. The learned Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, but modified the sentence, enhancing the fine amount from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.9,00,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three (3) months, while maintaining the sentence of Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year. Out of the fine amount collected, awarded Rs.8,95,000/- to the complainant towards compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. 3. Aggrieved by the enhancement of fine amount, the petitioner/accused preferred this revision contending that in the appeal preferred by the accused against the conviction, sentence could not be enhanced as per the provision under Section 386(b)(iii) Cr.P.C. The enhancement of fine and default imprisonment imposed by the learned Sessions Judge was against the law and procedure and it was liable to be set aside. The imposition of fine apart from awarding imprisonment was under the discretionary power of the court. Order to pay compensation was not mandatory. The word used under Section 357 Cr.P.C. was “may”, therefore there was no defect and illegality in the procedure followed by the trial court. Both the courts failed to consider the probabilities of financial capacity of the complainant to lend the amount. Both the courts failed to examine the pending civil dispute in O.S.No.1231 of 2008 filed under Specific Relief Act for the alleged amount of Rs.9,00,000/- lent to the accused. No prudent man would believe that a huge amount in lakhs of rupees was lent to a person as hand loan without any document against whom and his family member, a civil dispute was pending in the court. Both the courts below failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence on record. Both the courts below drawn presumptions under Section 139 of the NI Act without considering the probabilities and financial capacity of the complainant. The appellate judge failed to record proper reasons to discard the documents marked as Exs.D1 to D3. Both the courts below failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence on record. Both the courts below drawn presumptions under Section 139 of the NI Act without considering the probabilities and financial capacity of the complainant. The appellate judge failed to record proper reasons to discard the documents marked as Exs.D1 to D3. The respondent/complainant in his cross examination admitted about execution of MoU dated 25-9-2010 (Ex.D1) and also admitted his signature thereon and admitted that he had withdrawn the matter before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate in pursuance of the MoU, but he intentionally denied the MoU in the case on hand. Both the courts below failed to appreciate the evidence of PW.1 in proper perspective and wrongly recorded the sentences and enhanced the fine amount, hence prayed to set aside the conviction and sentences imposed by the courts below. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 5. Now the point for consideration before this court is whether the judgment of the appellate court in confirming the conviction of the petitioner/accused and enhancing the fine amount is correct, legal or proper, or need to be set aside. 6. The power under revision is conferred both on the High Court and Sessions Court to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order passed by the courts below. It is well settled that the scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited and the court cannot re-appreciate evidence afresh as if sitting in appeal unless the evidence is found perverse and unreasonable. The finding of facts recorded by the courts below cannot be interfered with unless such findings are perverse or based on no evidence or suffered from any error of law. 7. In the light of the settled principles with regard to the scope of the revision, when the judgments of the trial court and the appellate court are observed, no illegality is found in appreciating the evidence on record by the courts below and applying the law to the facts of the case. Both the courts below on considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and applying the presumptions as the accused admitted his signature on the cheque and had not adduced any acceptable material to rebut the presumptions raised under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act, convicted the accused. Both the courts below on considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and applying the presumptions as the accused admitted his signature on the cheque and had not adduced any acceptable material to rebut the presumptions raised under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act, convicted the accused. The appellate court had also taken into consideration the additional evidence adduced by the accused under Section 391 Cr.P.C. It also discussed the evidence of accused examined as DW.1 and discussed the documents marked under Exs.D1 and D2 and rightly came to the conclusion that the accused failed to rebut the presumptions under the Act. Hence, this Court finds no illegality in the judgment of the appellate Court in confirming the conviction on the revision petitioner/accused. 8. The only point that needs to be considered in this revision is whether the enhancement of fine amount and imposing default sentence by the appellate court in the appeal preferred by the accused is in accordance with law. 9. Section 386 Cr.P.C. in Chapter XXIX deals with the powers of the appellate court and 386 (b) Cr.P.C. is pertaining to the appeals from convictions, which reads as follows: “386. Power of the Appellate Court: After perusing such record and hearing the appellant or his pleader, if he appears, and the Public Prosecutor if he appears, and in case of an appeal under section 377 or section 378, the accused, if he appears, the Appellate Court may, if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering, dismiss the appeal, or may- (a) xxxxx (b) in an appeal from a conviction- (i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be re-tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or committed for trial, or (ii) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or (iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the Same.” 10. As such, Section 386 (b) (iii) Cr.P.C. clearly prescribes that in an appeal against a conviction, the nature of the sentence can be altered but it cannot be enhanced. 11. The appellate Court committed an error in recording the enhancement of the fine amount which he had ordered in Revision. As such, Section 386 (b) (iii) Cr.P.C. clearly prescribes that in an appeal against a conviction, the nature of the sentence can be altered but it cannot be enhanced. 11. The appellate Court committed an error in recording the enhancement of the fine amount which he had ordered in Revision. His mistake was in enhancing the fine amount in the appeal against the conviction preferred by the accused. The appellate Court was correct to the extent of dismissing the appeal confirming the sentence passed by the trial Court in CC No.134 of 2011. It was even entitled to modify the sentence but could not have enhanced the fine amount in the appeal preferred by the appellant. As the complainant also preferred a revision and the Sessions Court had allowed the said revision and enhanced the fine amount and awarded the compensation out of the fine amount to the complainant, the Sessions Court ought not to have mentioned the same in the appeal, which created confusion. As such, it is considered fit to allow the criminal revision case in part deleting the portion of the judgment of the appellate court to the extent of enhancement of fine amount in the appeal, however, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court. 12. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part deleting the portion i.e. “The accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.9,00,000/- in default to suffer S.I., for 3 months (Instead of Rs.10,000/- and out of the fine collected, Rs.8,95,000/- is awarded to the complainant towards compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. Already Rs.10,000/- collected by the Court below. The appellant- Respondent shall pay the remaining fine amount of Rs.8,90,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Ninety thousand only) within two months from the date of this Judgment. Lower Court is directed to take steps for implementation of this Judgment”, of the judgment dated 30.06.2015 passed in Crl.A. No.55 of 2012 by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for trial of Communal Offence Cases cum VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.