ORDER : This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the guilt, conviction and sentence inflicted against the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (for short ‘N.I.Act 1881’). 2. On the complaint of Respondent No.1 herein this revision petitioner was prosecuted in C.C.No.461 of 2005 and after due trial, the learned II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole by a judgment dated 02.02.2006 found him guilty for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act and convicted him and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and he was further directed to pay Rs.11,662/- as compensation to Respondent No.1 herein in terms of Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. 3. The convict assailed the said judgment in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2006. After due hearing afforded to both sides learned V-Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Ongole by a judgment dated 14.03.2007 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. 4. It is against those convicting judgments of both the Courts below, this revision is filed stating that evidence was improperly appreciated and the disputed transaction is of civil in nature and could not have been prosecuted as a criminal case and there was no debt outstanding so as to attract liability under Section 138 of N.I.Act. It is for these reasons revision petitioner sought for his acquittal by upsetting the judgments of the Courts below. 5. Appearing for Respondent No.1 the learned counsel submits that, facts established through evidence clearly made out a case under Section 138 of N.I.Act and both the Courts below properly appreciated the evidence and reached to proper conclusions. 6. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1/complainant further submitted that subsequent to the judgments of Courts below the present revision petitioner paid the entire amount and in that view of the matter it does not invite any punishment for revision petitioner. 7. Representing Respondent No.2/State the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the case be disposed of according to law. 8. By an Order dated 29-03-2007 in Crl.M.P.No.646 of 2007 this Court suspended the execution of substance sentence and released the revision petitioner on bail. 7. Representing Respondent No.2/State the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the case be disposed of according to law. 8. By an Order dated 29-03-2007 in Crl.M.P.No.646 of 2007 this Court suspended the execution of substance sentence and released the revision petitioner on bail. Though the revision petitioner is represented by learned Counsel when this revision was filed, during the subsequent period though the matter was listed on several occasions there has been no representation for revision petitioner. In terms of Section 403 Cr.P.C it was recorded that revision petitioner had no arguments to submit. 9. The point that falls for consideration is:- “Whether the judgments of the Courts below suffer from any illegality or irregularity or impropriety requiring interference?” 10. POINT:- The grounds urged in the revision do not indicate any infraction of procedure prescribed for trial of summons cases or procedure for hearing a criminal appeal. All throughout the legal proceedings before the both Courts below revision petitioner was represented by learned counsel and he was furnished with copies of documents and he was informed of the accusations and his plea of not guilty was recorded and in his presence or in the presence of his learned counsel evidence was recorded and the witness was cross-examined by the defence and the incriminating material on record was confronted to the revision petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and his explanations were recorded and he was given opportunities to adduce any evidence in defence and he was given opportunity to submit arguments. Therefore, on procedure in a criminal case there is nothing in challenge in the revision. 11. The case against the revision petitioner is that M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Limited is an incorporated company and this revision petitioner applied for a consumer loan under Ex.P3 dated 26.09.2003 and the company duly granted the loan under Ex.P4 dated 26.09.2003 and disbursed the loan amount by paying money to the vendors from whom certain articles were purchased by the revision petitioner. In terms of the agreement, the loan had to be repaid in monthly installments and the revision petitioner had given post dated cheques to the creditor. Exs.P6 to P9 are the four cheques each is drawn for Rs.2,478/- and each cheque pertains to one month and all the four cheques pertain to the periods of November 2004 to February 2005. In terms of the agreement, the loan had to be repaid in monthly installments and the revision petitioner had given post dated cheques to the creditor. Exs.P6 to P9 are the four cheques each is drawn for Rs.2,478/- and each cheque pertains to one month and all the four cheques pertain to the periods of November 2004 to February 2005. The company presented them for collection and all the four cheques were returned unpaid by the banker by issuing Exs.P10 to P14 memos endorsing that they exceeded the arrangements. Thereupon, demanding payment of money covered by these cheques, the creditor company issued Ex.P15 notice dated 14.05.2005 and that was dispatched to the accused under Ex.P17 postal receipts and the notice was received by this revision petitioner on 23.05.2005 evidenced by postal acknowledgment Ex.P16. Showing that this revision petitioner is a borrower, the company also filed a ledger extract as per Ex.P18. It is also on record that, seeking recovery of money the company also filed O.S.No.1098 of 2005 before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole mentioning that 17 cheques issued by revision petitioner were dis-honoured. The truth of the contents of these documents was deposed by Pw.1 who is an authorized officer of the company. With reference to various time periods provided for filing a complaint under Section 138 of N.I Act and their compliance the learned trial Court at Para 13 of its judgment recorded that all the time periods were complied with. There is no challenge from the accused on this aspect. The learned trial Court considered the entire evidence and the arguments on both sides and held that as a borrower, towards repayments the cheques were given by the accused and they were dishonoured as they exceeded the arrangements he had with the bank and despite receiving notice he did not choose to repay and thereby the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act was committed. It observed, the fact that the accused has given these cheques and these cheques contain the signatures of accused remained un-disputed before him. In that view of the matter it also raised a presumption under Section 139 of N.I.Act and presumed that the cheques were given towards discharge of debt/liability. After considering the defence arguments, learned trial Court held that the presumption remained un-rebutted. Finally it found the accused guilty and convicted him and sentenced him accordingly. 12. In that view of the matter it also raised a presumption under Section 139 of N.I.Act and presumed that the cheques were given towards discharge of debt/liability. After considering the defence arguments, learned trial Court held that the presumption remained un-rebutted. Finally it found the accused guilty and convicted him and sentenced him accordingly. 12. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, considered the entire evidence on record once again and considered the judgment of the trial Court and in the light of the submissions made before him by both the counsel, it finally recorded its approval on all the facts and law that were mentioned in the trial Court judgment. Therefore, it dismissed the appeal. 13. In this revision, the contention raised is only about appreciation of evidence. As this Court has gone through the record and judgments of both the Courts below, this Court finds nothing incorrect in the way the evidence was appreciated by the both the Courts. They considered the entire evidence and did not omit to consider any part of the evidence and did not consider anything that was not part of the record. Giving cheques and failure to repay despite their dishonour being notified is made an offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. In the case at hand, such instance occurred. Respondent No.1 company filed a civil suit for recovery of money by virtue of Ex.P3 loan application and Ex.P4 loan agreement and other documents and initiated criminal prosecution for dis-honour of the cheques. The contention of the revision petitioner that there can be a civil case and cannot be a criminal case is without any merit. On considering the entire material on record this Court finds no lapses in the judgments of the Courts below. Therefore there is no merit in this revision. 14. Considering the very fair submission of learned counsel for Respondent No.1 that its dues were fully satisfied and it does not require any sentence this Court is inclined to modify the sentence. Point is answered accordingly. 15. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part modifying the judgment dated 14.03.2007 of the learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Ongole in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2006 and the judgment dated 02.02.2006 of learned II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole in C.C.No.461/2005. Point is answered accordingly. 15. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part modifying the judgment dated 14.03.2007 of the learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Ongole in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2006 and the judgment dated 02.02.2006 of learned II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole in C.C.No.461/2005. This revision petitioner was sentenced by both the Courts below to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and now that is set-aside. Rs.11,662/- imposed by the learned trial Court is to be considered as fine and the entire fine amount shall be paid as compensation to Respondent No.1. If the fine amount is not paid the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. In these terms the sentence stands modified. 16. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the order of this Court to the Court below and on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the petitioner in C.C.No.461 of 2005, dated 02.02.2006, and to report compliance to this Court. Registry is directed to dispatch a copy of this order along with the lower Court record, if any, to the Court below on or before 23.03.2023. A copy of this order be placed before the Registrar (Judicial), forthwith, for giving necessary instructions to the concerned Officers in the Registry. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.