ORDER : (Ganesh Ram Meena, J.) 1. This revision petition has been filed by the accused-petitioner assailing the judgment dated 27.03.2003 passed by the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, No.17 Jaipur City, Jaipur (Raj.) in Criminal Case No.252/2002 (Rajneesh Pandey Vs. Rajeev Joshi), whereby, the accused-petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981 (hereinafter is to be referred as’ the Act of 1981’) and was sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months simple imprisonment and further ordered that the accused-petitioner shall pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) as compensation to the complainant and against the judgment dated 15.06.2004 passed by the learned Special Court (Fake Currency Cases) Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No.183/2003, whereby, the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner against the judgment of conviction and sentence, was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has already paid the amount of fine that is Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant, as ordered by the learned trial Court. Counsel further submits that the accused-petitioner could not get proper opportunity of hearing at the time of disposal of the said appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant-Rajneesh Pandey lodged a complaint against the accused-petitioner for prosecuting and punishing the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Act of 1981 with the averments that the petitioner issued a cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- in his favour as regard the debt liabilities and when he presented the said cheque for encashment, same was dishonoured with the remark by the bank that there is no sufficient amount in the account of the petitioner. 4. The complaint was filed after service of notice upon the accused-petitioner for making payment of the cheque amount, but he failed to pay the said amount. The complainant was examined under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and also submitted certain documents. The complainant got examined himself as PW-1 and got exhibited certain documents in support of his claim. The learned trial Court framed charges against the present accused-petitioner, to which he denied and claimed to be tried. 5. The complainant was examined under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and also submitted certain documents. The complainant got examined himself as PW-1 and got exhibited certain documents in support of his claim. The learned trial Court framed charges against the present accused-petitioner, to which he denied and claimed to be tried. 5. The accused-petitioner was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. after considering the submissions made by the counsels for the respective parties and after taking into consideration the evidence adduced during trial. The learned trial Court convicted the accused-petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act of 1981 and sentenced him as mentioned above. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.03.2023, the accused-petitioner preferred an appeal No. 183/2003 which was dismissed vide order dated 15.06.2004. The only submission made by the counsel for the accused-petitioner is that the petitioner was not allowed proper opportunity of hearing while disposing the appeal filed by him. 7. On consideration of the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the record, it is revealed that the accused-petitioner after filing the appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence, did not put his appearance before the learned Appellate Court even after issuance of arrest warrant against him and the same has been mentioned by the learned Appellate Court in its judgment. In such circumstances, the learned Appellate Court had no option except disposing the appeal in absence of the accused-petitioner or his counsel, on merits. 8. The accused-petitioner has filed this revision petition without submitting a certificate as required under Rule 311(3) in Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952. (Amended upto July 2012)(hereinafter is to be referred to as ’Rules of 1952’), which clearly shows that he did not even surrender after upholding the conviction and sentence and obtained the order of suspension of sentence from this Court on 23.09.2005, concealing the material fact that he has neither put in appearance before the learned Appellate Court during pendency of appeal, even after issuance of arrest warrant against him, nor after upholding the conviction and sentence by the learned Appellate Court. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, the plea of the counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner did not get proper opportunity of hearing in the appeal, is wholly misconceived and not acceptable. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, the plea of the counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner did not get proper opportunity of hearing in the appeal, is wholly misconceived and not acceptable. The scope of the High Court while considering the revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is very limited that is to cure the error of law, illegality or perversity in the judgment passed by the learned trial Court or the learned Appellate Court. Counsel for the petitioner is not able to point out any illegality, perversity or any other error of law in the impugned judgment passed by the Court below or any procedural illegality. 10. In view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s).20900/2024 (Daulat Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 30.07.2024, even the revision petition is not maintainable without filing a certificate under Rule 311(3) of the Rules of 1952 and in the present case the accused-petitioner has not submitted any such certificate. 11. Hence, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court as well as the judgment of the learned Appellate Court dismissing the appeal. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. 12. The bail bonds and sureties submitted by the accused-petitioner in compliance of order dated 23.09.2005 stand cancelled. He shall surrender for serving the sentence within a period of one month, failing which the trial Court is shall take necessary steps as per law.