JUDGMENT : (V. SRINIVAS, J.) Assailing the judgment dated 13.10.2015 in Crl.A.No.183 of 2011 on the file of the Court of learned IV Additional Sessions Judge at Visakhapatnam, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the judgment dated 12.12.2011 in C.C.No.99 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam, for the offence under section 138 r/w.142 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as “N.I.Act”), the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 . 2. The revision case was admitted on 21.01.2016 and the sentence imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide order in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.294 of 2016. 3. The shorn of necessary facts are that: i). On 17.01.2008, the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum and executed Ex.P.1 promissory note in favour of the complainant. Later, accused got issued Ex.P.2 cheque bearing No.779332, dated 08.12.2009 for Rs.1,00,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Seethmmadhara Branch at Visakhapatnam towards part payment of debt amount under Ex.P.1. When the complainant presented the said cheque for collection through his banker on 08.12.2009, the same was returned with an endorsement that ‘insufficient funds’ under Ex.P.3 cheque return memo, dated 11.12.2009. iv). Then, the complainant got issued Ex.P.4 notice dated 21.12.2009 to the accused. Even after receipt of the same under Ex.P.5 acknowledgment, the accused did not make any payment and kept quiet. Hence, the complaint. 4. The complaint was taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.99 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam, after full-fledged enquiry, vide judgment dated 12.12.2011, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 138 r/w.142 of N.I.Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six (6) months and also to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of two months. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.183 of 2011, before the Court of learned IV Additional Sessions Judge at Visakhapatnam and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 13.10.2015, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the accused. 6. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused. 7. Heard Sri K.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused. 8. 6. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused. 7. Heard Sri K.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused. 8. 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?” 9. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused is that the matter was settled out of Court and filed joint memo before the Court below, but, without considering the said fact, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the said offence, which was affirmed by the first Appellate Court, thereby, the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner are liable to be set aside. 10. It is not in dispute about the signatures of accused on Exs.P.1 and P.2. It is also not in dispute that when Ex.P.2 cheque was presented, the same was returned unpaid under Ex.P.3 memo issued by the Bank concerned and that the complainant issued Ex.P.4 statutory notice, the same was received by the accused under Ex.P.5 acknowledgement and kept quiet. 11. It is settled law that unless contrary is proved, the presumption is in favour of complainant under Section 118 of N.I.Act. Section 139 of N.I.Act enjoins the Court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability and the burden is only on the accused to rebut the said presumption. In the present case on hand, the accused utterly failed to prove that the cheque was not issued to discharge the debt under Ex.P.1 promissory note. Thereby, the presumption is in favour of the complainant to prove his case. Even the defence taken by the accused before the Court below that Ex.P.2 cheque was issued towards transaction of chit between him and one G.Apparao, not come in the way of the case of compliance. On perusal of Ex.P.1 promissory note it categorically shows that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant. The Courts below after elaborate appreciation of the matter rightly discarded the said contention raised by the accused. Even in the present revision, not a single ground taken by the accused that the complainant filed a false complaint against him by using Exs.P.1 and P.2. The Courts below after elaborate appreciation of the matter rightly discarded the said contention raised by the accused. Even in the present revision, not a single ground taken by the accused that the complainant filed a false complaint against him by using Exs.P.1 and P.2. Thereby, this Court has no reason to disbelieve the case of the complainant. 12. Now it is only coming to the only contention of the learned counsel in the present revision that the matter was already settled out of the Court, but the same was not considered by the Courts below. 13. On perusal of the material available on record, both parties have filed a memo before the Trial Court to refer the matter to the Lok Adalat for recording compromise. But no such compromise was entered by the parties before the Lok Adalat and no award or otherwise filed before the Court to prove the contention that the matter was settled between the parties amicably. Thereby, the said contention has no legs to stand to decide the matter on merits by the Courts below. 14. The Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand , [ (2004) 7 SCC 659 ] , held that “The revisional court is empowered to exercise all the powers conferred on the appellate court by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 401 Cr.P.C . Section 401 Cr.P.C is a provision enabling the High Court to exercise all powers of an appellate court, if necessary, in aid of power of superintendence or supervision as a part of power of revision conferred on the High Court or the Sessions Court. Section 397 Cr.P.C . confers power on the High Court or Sessions Court, as the case may be for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence, or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court”. It is for the above purpose, if necessary, the High Court or the Sessions Court can exercise all appellate powers. Section 401 Cr.P.C conferring powers of an appellate court on the revisional court is with the above limited purpose. The provisions contained in Section 395 to Section 401 Cr.P.C , read together, do not indicate that the revisional power of the High Court can be exercised as a second appellate power. 15. Section 401 Cr.P.C conferring powers of an appellate court on the revisional court is with the above limited purpose. The provisions contained in Section 395 to Section 401 Cr.P.C , read together, do not indicate that the revisional power of the High Court can be exercised as a second appellate power. 15. Thus, it is settled law that the revisional court should not re-appreciate 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 Supreme Court of India in several cases. 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. 16. Having regard to the above discussion, 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 to exercise revisional power. 17. Now, so far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, by considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court rightly sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment of six (6) months, which is a minimum punishment for the said offence, as well imposed fine of Rs.3,000/-, and the same was affirmed by the Sessions Court. Therefore, no further discussion is required on the quantum of sentence imposed against the accused. Therefore, this Court has no reason to interfere with the well-articulated judgment of the Trial Court, which was affirmed by the first Appellant Court, as such, the present revision has no merits and liable for dismissal. 18. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 13.10.2015 in Crl.A.No.183 of 2011 on the file of the Court of learned IV Additional Sessions Judge at Visakhapatnam. The petitioner/accused is directed to surrender before the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam to serve the sentence imposed against him, if not, the learned Magistrate concerned shall take steps against the petitioner/accused. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. The petitioner/accused is directed to surrender before the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam to serve the sentence imposed against him, if not, the learned Magistrate concerned shall take steps against the petitioner/accused. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.