JUDGMENT : (Sandipkumar C. More, J.) Heard. 2. Admit. The present matter is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Being aggrieved with the judgment and order dated 05/07/2022 passed by the learned District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as “Appellate Court”) in Criminal Appeal No.150 of 2019, the present applicant, i.e. the original accused has preferred this revision application. Under the impugned judgment and order, the learned Appellate Court has confirmed the conviction of the applicant/accused in Summary Criminal Case No.5457 of 2016 vide judgment and order dated 06/05/2019 passed by 20th Judicial Magistrate First Class and Special Court, Nagpur (for short “Trial Court”) under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short “N.I.Act”). As per the said confirmation, the applicant/accused is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rs. One Crore only) to the present non-applicant, i.e. the original complainant within one month from the date of that order. In default of payment, the applicant/accused was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for four months. 4. Facts leading to the present revision application are as under: The non-applicant/complainant had filed the aforesaid Summary Criminal Case No.5457 of 2016 against the applicant/accused alleging that during the period from 01/04/2014 till 31/07/2015, the applicant/accused purchased goods from him worth Rs.1,06,19,130/- and only paid Rs.20,00,000/-. As such, there was outstanding of Rs.86,19,130/- towards the aforesaid transactions with the applicant/accused. In respect of the said outstanding, the applicant/accused issued two cheques, i.e. cheque bearing No.012855 for Rs.61,02,505/- and cheque No.013489 amounting to Rs.25,16,625/- drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Karve Nagar Branch, Nagpur, both dated 30/01/2016. However, those cheques were dishonoured and therefore, the non-applicant/complainant issued notice for asking the payment of those cheques to the applicant/ accused. Despite receipt of said notice, the applicant/accused failed to make payment of those dishonoured cheques within the stipulated period as per law. Thus, the non-applicant/complainant filed the aforesaid criminal case against the applicant/accused wherein he was convicted as mentioned above. Moreover, the learned Appellate Court has also confirmed the conviction and hence, this revision application. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant/accused vehemently submitted that the non-applicant/accused did not examine his accountant to prove the account extracts between the parties. Thus, the non-applicant/complainant filed the aforesaid criminal case against the applicant/accused wherein he was convicted as mentioned above. Moreover, the learned Appellate Court has also confirmed the conviction and hence, this revision application. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant/accused vehemently submitted that the non-applicant/accused did not examine his accountant to prove the account extracts between the parties. Moreover, he pointed out that the goods were in fact purchased by Varron Company, which is evident from the invoices on record, but the complainant did not examine any person from the said Varron Company. According to him, the complainant prepared the documents unilaterally and he could not lead any evidence to establish the fact that the goods were supplied to Varron Company at the instance of the applicant/accused. He specifically pointed out that the accused had not signed the invoices, but there was endorsement of Varron Company in receipt of the goods purchased. He further pointed out that the learned Trial Court did not frame proper questions while recording the statement of accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (fort short “Cr.P.C.”) and therefore, the applicant/accused was denied for the opportunity to explain the incriminating facts against him. In support of his submissions, he relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Premchand v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2013) 5 SCC 522. 6. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the non-applicant/ complainant submits that the non-applicant has already established all the requirements by adducing reliable and cogent evidence on record to prove the offence under section 138 of the N.I.Act. According to him, the applicant/accused has already failed to establish his defence that the goods were purchased by Varron Company and not by him. The applicant/accused has also failed to establish that there was any privity of contract between the complainant and the said Varron Company. He pointed out that the invoice at Exhibit-47 placed on record by the applicant/accused was in fact addressed to the accused and not to Varron Company. Thus, he claimed that the applicant/ accused has not made out any case for interference in the impugned judgments. He also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashish Chadha v. Asha Kumari and another, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 680 , clarifying the scope of revision. 7. Heard rival submissions. Thus, he claimed that the applicant/ accused has not made out any case for interference in the impugned judgments. He also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashish Chadha v. Asha Kumari and another, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 680 , clarifying the scope of revision. 7. Heard rival submissions. Also perused the documents on record along with the impugned judgments and original record and proceedings of SCC No.5457 of 2016. 8. Admittedly, both the Courts below have concurrently held that the non-applicant/complainant had established all the ingredients of section 138 of the N.I.Act by placing cogent, oral and documentary evidence on record. It appears that the applicant/accused had come with the defence that the goods were supplied to Varron Company and therefore, he was not liable to pay the amount to the non-applicant/ complainant. He also claimed that he had filed civil suit for recovery of amount of Rs.5,50,00,000/- against Varron Company as the said Varron Company did not pay him the said amount. However, in support of such defence, the applicant/accused has not led any evidence on record showing that the goods were purchased by Varron Company. On the contrary, the documents on record clearly indicate that the transactions of the goods were in between the non-applicant/ complainant and the applicant/accused only. Admittedly, the tax invoice at Exhibit-47 filed by the applicant/accused clearly indicates that the non-applicant had purchased goods from Havells India Limited for the applicant/accused as consignee. It is significant to note that the applicant/accused has in fact filed this tax invoice, which is in the name of his company. Further, it is not in dispute that the applicant/accused was contractor in Varron Company and therefore, the aforesaid tax invoice Exhibit-47 clearly indicates that it was the applicant/accused who had called the goods from the complainant at the address of Varron Autokast Limited. Thus, the applicant/accused has definitely failed to establish the fact that the transactions in respect of the goods were in between the complainant and that Varron Company. The applicant/accused has also failed to prove that there was contract between Varron Company and the complainant in respect of supply of the goods. Thus, it is clearly established that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the Varron Company, though the goods were delivered to Varron Company. 9. The applicant/accused has also failed to prove that there was contract between Varron Company and the complainant in respect of supply of the goods. Thus, it is clearly established that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the Varron Company, though the goods were delivered to Varron Company. 9. Further, it appears that the complainant filed ledger account extract at Exhibit-30 showing the outstanding against the applicant/accused. The applicant/accused has also admitted during the cross-examination that he used to maintain account of statement of goods purchased from the complainant. However, the applicant/ accused never filed such account statement maintained by him in order to prove his defence that he had not purchased any goods for which the cheques in dispute were issued. On the contrary, the evidence on record shows that the accused did not dispute the said ledger account Exhibit-30 and the tax invoices Exhibits-15 to 29 issued in the name of applicant/accused only and not in the name of Varron Company. The learned counsel for the applicant/accused vehemently argued that the complainant did not examine his Accountant, who prepared the said ledger account Exhibit-30. However, at the time of exhibiting the said ledger account, the applicant/accused had not taken any objection and therefore, at this stage no such objection can be raised challenging the truthfulness of the said document. Further, it is extremely important to note that the applicant/accused had come with the case that he filed civil suit against Varron Autokast Limited for the recovery of amount, but he did not file any copy of the plaint on record. When the applicant/accused is claiming certain recovery from Varron Company, then it was incumbent upon him to file the copy of plaint on record by mentioning that the amounts of cheques were not claimed by him from the Varron Autokast Limited. Had he really not included the aforesaid amounts of cheques in the recovery suit against Varron Company, then he would have filed the copy of plaint on record. However, by withholding such copy of the plaint, an adverse inference can be drawn against the applicant/accused that he himself had purchased the goods in the instant case. 10. Had he really not included the aforesaid amounts of cheques in the recovery suit against Varron Company, then he would have filed the copy of plaint on record. However, by withholding such copy of the plaint, an adverse inference can be drawn against the applicant/accused that he himself had purchased the goods in the instant case. 10. Further the evidence on record indicates that the non- applicant/complainant has already placed on record all the documents in respect of purchase of the goods by the applicant/ accused and it is also important to note that despite receipt of statutory notice, the applicant/accused failed to reply the same. Thus, all the ingredients of offence under section 138 of the N.I.Act have been established against the applicant/accused and there are concurrent findings of both the Courts below to that effect. The learned counsel for the applicant/accused heavily relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble apex Court in the case of Premchand v. State of Maharashtra (supra), wherein it is observed that “every criminal Court proceeding under section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. has to shoulder the onerous responsibility of scanning the evidence after the prosecution closes its case, to trace the incriminating circumstances in the evidence against the accused and to prepare relevant questions to extend opportunity to the accused to explain any such circumstance in the evidence that could be used against him”. However, on going through the statement of accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in the instant case, it is clearly evident that each and every incriminating fact was put up to the accused and therefore, nothing was remained to be explained by the accused. Further, the defence of the applicant/ accused as reflected from the aforesaid statement, is also not established. On the contrary, the applicant/accused had admitted in his cross-examination that the complainant used his earlier cheques, was falsely stated by him. Thus, the applicant/accused himself has falsified his defence. 11. The learned counsel for the non-applicant/complainant has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashish Chadha v. Asha Kumari (supra), wherein the scope of revisional jurisdiction is discussed. It has been observed as follows: “The High Court has in its revisional jurisdiction appraised the evidence which it could not have done. 11. The learned counsel for the non-applicant/complainant has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashish Chadha v. Asha Kumari (supra), wherein the scope of revisional jurisdiction is discussed. It has been observed as follows: “The High Court has in its revisional jurisdiction appraised the evidence which it could not have done. It is the trial court which has to decide whether evidence on record is sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the accused so as to frame charge against him.” 12. In the instant case also, the learned Trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective and thereafter convicted the applicant/accused. Not only this, but the learned Appellate Court has also discussed the said evidence in the light of provisions of law and thereafter confirmed the findings of the learned Trial Court. Thus, as per the aforesaid observation of Hon’ble Apex Court, re-appreciation of evidence under the revisional jurisdiction is not permissible. Therefore, considering all these facts, no interference is required in both the impugned judgments. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision Application No.189 of 2022 stands dismissed and disposed of. 13. In view of disposal of the revision application, pending applications, if any, are disposed of.