ORDER : The revision petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the N.I.Act’) and in challenge the present revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. 2. On a complaint filed by respondent No.1, the revision petitioner was prosecuted in C.C.No.1211 of 2002 and after due trial, the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada by a judgment dated 13.10.2003 found the revision petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and convicted him and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month. 3. The revision petitioner challenged the said judgment in Criminal Appeal No.217 of 2003. Learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada after due hearing of the appeal, by a judgment dated 22.08.2005 confirmed the guilt of the accused but modified the sentence. The learned appellate Court sentenced the revision petitioner till raising of the day and he was directed to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation to complainant and one month time was granted and a default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months was prescribed. 4. Challenging the worthiness of the above judgments, the present revision is filed on the following grounds: 1. The debt alleged was unenforceable. 2. The cheque was given by the revision petitioner only towards security of the above referred unenforceable debt. 3. This revision petitioner did not receive the statutory notice and respondent No.1 failed to prove service of notice. 4. Courts below committed error in convicting the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and the appellate Court committed an error in directing this revision petitioner to pay the entire amount of legally unenforceable debt. 5. On 21.09.2005 in Crl.M.P.No.2014 of 2005 this Court suspended the execution of sentence and released the convict on bail. Thereafter, the revision petitioner or his learned counsel never prosecuted this revision. At one point of time even warrants were issue but they were unserved as the revision petitioner could not be traced. Despite granting opportunities, no arguments were advanced on behalf of the revision petitioner. Therefore, in terms of Section 403 Cr.P.C. the revision is to be disposed of in accordance with law. 6. Respondent No.1 was the complainant before the Courts below. No arguments were made and were submitted on behalf of respondent No.1. Despite granting opportunities, no arguments were advanced on behalf of the revision petitioner. Therefore, in terms of Section 403 Cr.P.C. the revision is to be disposed of in accordance with law. 6. Respondent No.1 was the complainant before the Courts below. No arguments were made and were submitted on behalf of respondent No.1. State is shown as respondent No.2 and learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor argued saying that the case be disposed of in accordance with law. 7. The point that falls for consideration is: “Whether the impugned judgments are irregular or illegal or improper requiring any interference? 8. Point: For the accusations leveled against him, the plea of the accused was one of not guilty. To prove the accusation, complainant testified as PW.1. The Manager of the bank where the accused has been maintaining an account testified as PW.2. The Bank Manager of the bank of the complainant testified as PW.3. Defence did not adduce any oral evidence. 9. The case speaks about borrowal of money twice on part of the accused from the complainant. In evidence of it Exs.P.1 and P.2 pronotes were marked. The allegation is that towards repayment of that debt, the accused had given a cheque dated 13.05.2000. That cheque is Ex.P.3. Allegation was that on presentation of this cheque it was returned unpaid with an endorsement that funds in the account of the accused were insufficient to honour the cheque. To establish that, the memos issued by both banks are marked as Exs.P.4 and P.5. Demanding the accused to repay the cheque amount, the complainant got issued Ex.P.6-legal notice. As per the evidence this notice was dispatched by way of certificate of posting under Ex.P.8 and a copy of the notice was also sent to the address of the accused by way of registered post and that envelope was returned unserved with a postal endorsement that the addressee/accused refused to claim the envelope that was addressed to him. As against all this, no documentary evidence was filed by the accused. 10. The evidence of PW.1 was that the accused borrowed Rs.20,000/- on 02.11.1998. He again borrowed Rs.50,000/- on 13.11.1998. Exs.P.1 and P.2-pronotes represent that debt. The witness was cross-examined. At para No.7 of its judgment, learned trial Court recorded that at the trial accused did not deny his signatures on these two pronotes. 10. The evidence of PW.1 was that the accused borrowed Rs.20,000/- on 02.11.1998. He again borrowed Rs.50,000/- on 13.11.1998. Exs.P.1 and P.2-pronotes represent that debt. The witness was cross-examined. At para No.7 of its judgment, learned trial Court recorded that at the trial accused did not deny his signatures on these two pronotes. At para No.6 of its judgment, the learned appellate Court recorded that while cross-examining PW.1, accused suggested to the witness that the money he borrowed under Exs.P.1 and P.2 pronotes were also discharged by him. It was then recorded that the plea of discharge having been raised by the accused was the one to be proved by him and he did not adduce any evidence and did not show any material in proof of discharge. 11. Both the Courts recorded that by virtue of the evidence of PW.1 and Exs.P.1 and P.2 that debt borrowed by the accused from the complainant was proved. 12. About that debt one of the contentions of accused before both the Courts below was that the debt was barred by limitation. Both the Courts negatived that contention. The same contention is now raised here. 1. Ex.P.1-pronote is dated 02.11.1998. 2. Ex.P.2-pronote is dated 13.11.1998. 3. A suit for recovery of money based on those pronotes, is to be filed within three years from the respective dates. 4. Ex.P.3-cheque dated 13.05.2000 was issued by the accused to the plaintiff towards repayment of the above referred debts. 13. The date of the cheque as against the above referred pronotes indicate that within 1½ years from the time of debt this cheque was issued. Thus, by the time the cheque was issued a civil suit for recovery of money was not time barred. Therefore that debt was not time barred and the cheque was given towards repayment of legally enforceable debt. Hence, the contention raised in the revision petition is incorrect and is against law and is in fact vexatious. 14. Referring to the evidence of PW.1, learned trial Court recorded that on dishonor of the cheque intimating the same and by way of demand for repayment the complainant got issued Ex.P.6-legal notice. The certificate of posting was deemed to have been served as envelope never came returned. The address available on the registered postal envelope indicates the address of the accused and at the trial accused did not deny the correctness of the address. The certificate of posting was deemed to have been served as envelope never came returned. The address available on the registered postal envelope indicates the address of the accused and at the trial accused did not deny the correctness of the address. On such observations, learned trial Court recorded a finding that valid notice was served on the accused by the complainant. 15. In his appeal, the accused once again contended about non-receipt of notice. Learned appellate Court recorded that during cross-examination of PW.1 the accused never contended non-receipt of notice. It then recorded that on the unserved returned registered postal envelope the endorsement of the postman was that the accused did not claim it. Non-claiming of a letter is to be considered as refusal and for holding that the learned appellate Court took support of four judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and principles under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and held that on facts and in law, there was valid service of notice on the accused. 16. These findings are challenged in this revision and nothing is shown as to how those well considered findings of Courts below about service of notice can be found fault with. Therefore, there is no merit in the grounds urged in this revision. 17. Learned trial Court recorded that on an account maintained by him in the bank of PW.2, the accused had drawn Ex.P.3-cheque and he legitimately passed it over to the complainant and that was dishonoured for insufficient funds in his account and it was never the defence of the accused that there were enough funds and thereafter a notice of demand was raised by the complainant which the accused received but he did not repay the cheque amount. It was based on this evidence, the learned trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. All that is needed under Section 138 of the N.I.Act to establish an offence is recorded by the trial Court and its findings are based on clear evidence available on record. The facts and law were once again examined by the appellate Court and were found to be correct. Once again the same contention is raised here without showing any incorrectness in those findings. The facts and law were once again examined by the appellate Court and were found to be correct. Once again the same contention is raised here without showing any incorrectness in those findings. Therefore, the contention of the revision petitioner that offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act is not made out is totally incorrect. 18. In the revision, it is urged that the learned appellate Court directed him to pay the entire amount covered by the cheque and granted it as compensation to complainant and that is incorrect. Section 138 of the N.I.Act provides punishment of imprisonment which may extend upto two years or the accused could be punished with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque or the accused could be punished with both the above referred punishments. The very generous appellate Court directed the accused/revision petitioner to pay a compensation of Rs.80,000/-. Ex.P.3-cheque is for Rs.80,000/-. Thus, excepting the cheque amount nothing more was awarded though several years lapsed and the accused did not repay the cheque amount to the complainant. Thus punishment rendered by the appellate Court is within the confines of the substantive provision in Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Therefore, there is no merit in this contention of the revision petitioner. 19. The competence of the Court which tried him, the competence of the Court which heard and disposed of appeal, the procedure followed for the trial by the learned Magistrate and the procedure followed by the appellate Court in hearing the appeal are in accordance with law and that process is not challenged here. Both the Courts followed the procedure and considered the evidence on record and did not consider anything other than evidence and did not omit to consider any evidence that is already available. They granted full opportunity to the defence to produce any evidence. They permitted the accused to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. They listened to his arguments and addressed them and answered them in their judgments. Thus, there is no illegality or irregularity or impropriety in those judgments. 20. For the reasons mentioned above, there is no merit in this revision and the point is answered against the revision petitioner. 21. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 22.08.2005 of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada in Criminal Appeal No.217 of 2003. 20. For the reasons mentioned above, there is no merit in this revision and the point is answered against the revision petitioner. 21. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 22.08.2005 of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada in Criminal Appeal No.217 of 2003. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.