ORDER : V. Srinivas, J. Assailing the judgment, dated 04.01.2007 in Crl.A.No.37of 2004 on the file of the Court of learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Ongole, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the judgment, dated 23.02.2004 in C.C.No.452 of 2003 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, for the offence under section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as “N.I.Act”), the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they arrayed before the trial Court. 3. The revision case was admitted on 28.03.2007 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the accused was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.629 of 2007. 4. The factual matrix of the case is that : (i). On 01.09.2001, the petitioner/accused borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- from the complainant and executed a pronote, agreeing to repay the debt together with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. Thereafter, when the complainant approached the accused to discharge the debt, he issued three cheques viz., on 20.01.2003 for Rs.40,000/-, 20.02.2003 for Rs.24,000/- and 20.03.2003 for Rs.30,000/- towards part satisfaction of debt. When the complainant presented the cheque, dated 20.01.2003 in Federal Bank, Ongole, for encashment on 17.06.2003, it was returned with memo issued by Union Bank of India, Ongole, to which it was sent for clearance, with an endorsement "insufficient funds" in account of accused. When the complainant informed about the same to accused, he requested to present the other two cheques on 27.06.2003 promising that he would arrange funds in this account by that date. Accordingly, on 27.06.2003, when the complainant presented the said two cheques, they were also returned due to "insufficient funds". (ii). The complainant got issued a notice to the accused, but the accused evaded the same. Hence, the complainant filed a private complaint against the accused for the offence under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 5. Accordingly, on 27.06.2003, when the complainant presented the said two cheques, they were also returned due to "insufficient funds". (ii). The complainant got issued a notice to the accused, but the accused evaded the same. Hence, the complainant filed a private complaint against the accused for the offence under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 5. The complaint was taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.452 of 2003 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole and after full-fledged trial, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 138 read with 34 of the N.I.Act and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment of a period of two(2) yearsand to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation to the complainant under Section 357 Cr.P.C., i.d.s.i., for three months for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with 148 of the N.I.Act. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.37 of 2004, before the Court of learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Ongole, and the same was dismissed, vide judgment, dated 04.01.2007, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 7. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused. 8. Heard Sri N. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Sri S. Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State. 9. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?” 10. Sri N. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the complainant failed to prove the ingredients to constitute the offence as alleged against the petitioner; that the complainant failed to explain about Ex.D1 to D3 and the petitioner has established the probabilities of the circumstances under which Ex.P2 to P4 cheques and Ex.P1 promissory note came into existence. Section 251 Cr.P.C., examination is only meant for limited purpose, but not a defence and the trial court eroded in taking aid of admission of accused with regard to issuance of cheque. Non-examination of one Ramesh is fatal to the case. Section 251 Cr.P.C., examination is only meant for limited purpose, but not a defence and the trial court eroded in taking aid of admission of accused with regard to issuance of cheque. Non-examination of one Ramesh is fatal to the case. Both the Courts below without appreciation the material on record have erroneously convicted the petitioner for the said offence and the same is liable to be set aside. 11. Sri S. Dheera Kanishk, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1/State submits that the Courts below properly appreciated the material on record and rightly convicted the accused for the said offence and this Court has no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. 12. In view of the facts and contentions raised by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court closely perused the material available on record. 13. To prove his case, the complainant himself was examined as P.W.1 and he reiterated the averments made in the complaint. He got marked Ex.P1 to P10 in support of his case. 14. The evidence of PW2 is that the accused took him to the house of PW1 to witness the borrowal of money and one Kishore scribed the pronote. In their presence, the accused received Rs.80,000/- from PW1 and executed Ex.P1 pronote. Except suggesting that PW2 has not witnessed the transaction and he is employee of PW1, nothing positive is suggested by the defence and PW2 strongly denied the same. 15. So, from the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 and the documentary evidence at Ex.P1 to P10, it is crystal clear that the complainant has complied the mandates of Sec.138 of NI Act and accused has not disputed the said documents. Under these circumstances, when once the complainant has complied the mandates of Sec.138 of NI Act, this court has no option but to raise the presumptions in favour of the complainant as contemplated under the provisions of Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act. 16. Admittedly, the presumptions available in favour of the complainant under the provisions of Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act are not conclusive proof, but they are rebuttable in nature. 16. Admittedly, the presumptions available in favour of the complainant under the provisions of Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act are not conclusive proof, but they are rebuttable in nature. Therefore, when once the complainant has fulfilled the mandates of Sec.138 of NI Act and when once the court has drawn the presumptions in favour of the complainant U/Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act, then the onus shifts on the accused to raise a probable defence and to prove the same before the court with legal evidence and to rebut the statutory presumptions available in favour of the complainant under the provisions of Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act. 17. In the case on hand, it is the contention of the accused that house standing in the name of mother of accused was mortgaged in favour of family of complainant and during that transaction the complainant obtained blank pronotes, agreements and blank cheques towards security. As discussed by the trial court as well Appellate Court, the accused does not deny his signature in Ex.P1 pronote and cheques and that failed to enter into the witness box also. As held in catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court, even a cheque issued as a surety, the drawer of the cheque can be convicted for dishonoring the cheque. 18. Coming to Ex.D1 to D3 receipts relied on by the accused, as discussed by the trial Court, they are prior to execution of Ex.P1 pronote and payment of Rs.50,000/- to the brother of complainant and they were no way helpful to disprove the presumption under Section 118 of the Act. Therefore, the accused has failed to rebut the statutory presumptions available in favour of the complainant under the provisions of Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act and thereby failed to substantiate his probable defence. 19. For the reasons discussed above, this court is of the considered view that the material placed on record clearly establishes the guilt against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Hence, this Court hold that the complainant has proved the guilt against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of NI Act. 20. It is settled law that the revisional court should not reappreciate the evidence or interfere with the findings of fact, unless they are perverse or unreasonable. Hence, this Court hold that the complainant has proved the guilt against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of NI Act. 20. It is settled law that the revisional court should not reappreciate the evidence or interfere with the findings of fact, unless they are perverse or unreasonable. This is one of the principles of criminal revision, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in plethora of judgments. The revisional court should not act as a Second Appellate Court and substitute its own views for those of the Court below, unless there is a clear error of law or a gross injustice in the order or proceeding of the lower court. The revisional court should exercise its power with caution and restraint and only in exceptional cases where there is a manifest illegality or a serious miscarriage of justice. 21. In the present case on hand, this Court does not find any such error of law or a gross injustice in the judgment or proceeding of the Courts below/Sessions Court to exercise revisional power. 22. However, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks this court indulgence to show some lenient view in favour of the petitioner, for which the counsel for the 2nd respondent submits he has no objection if petitioner pays the cheque amount with default clause. Now, coming to operation of sentence is concerned, in Judgment of this Court in Laxminivas Agarwal v. Andhra Semi-Conductors Pvt. Ltd., (2006) 1 ALD Crl. 300 (A.P.) as well judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197 , wherein at paragraph Nos.18, 19, 28 and 29, it was held as follows : 19. It is well settled that in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court does not, in the absence of perversity, upset concurrent factual findings. It is not for the Revisional Court to re-analyze and re-interpret the evidence on record. 28. In R. Vijayan vs. Baby and Another, (2012) 1 SCC 260 , this Court observed that the object of Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act is both punitive as also compensatory and restitutive. It is not for the Revisional Court to re-analyze and re-interpret the evidence on record. 28. In R. Vijayan vs. Baby and Another, (2012) 1 SCC 260 , this Court observed that the object of Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act is both punitive as also compensatory and restitutive. It provides a single forum and single proceeding for enforcement of criminal liability by reason of dishonour of cheque and for enforcement of the civil liability for realization of the cheque amount, there by obviating the need for the creditor to move two different reliefs. This Court expressed its anguish that some Magistrates went by the traditional view, that the criminal proceedings were for imposing punishment and did not exercise discretion to direct payment of compensation, causing considerable difficulty to the complainant, as invariably the limitation for filing civil cases would expire by the time the criminal case was decided”. 23. Considering the above authoritative pronouncements and as discussed supra, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below regarding conviction under Section 138 of N.I.Act against the petitioner. However, to meet the ends of justice, the petitioner/accused is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) to the complainant towards compensation within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, in default, he shall undergo the sentence of imprisonment for a period of three (3) months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Court of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, to pay the compensation amount as fixed by this court. In case, any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the trial Court as directed supra and in making the payment of compensation amount, the trial Court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence awarded against him by this Court. 24. With the above observations, the present Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Copy of this order shall be made to the trial Court and the learned Magistrate concerned can take steps against the petitioner/accused to serve the sentence, if he fails to comply with the condition stated in penultimate paragraph of this order. 24. With the above observations, the present Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Copy of this order shall be made to the trial Court and the learned Magistrate concerned can take steps against the petitioner/accused to serve the sentence, if he fails to comply with the condition stated in penultimate paragraph of this order. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.