..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.199 OF 2008 Anitha Atul Shah. ..Applicant. Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Subodh Desai, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste, APP, for the State. Mr.Shailesh Thakkar, Adv. for respondent No.2. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 30th July, 2008. DATED : 30th July, 2008. DATED : 30th July, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant-orig.accused, the learned Advocate for respondent No.2-orig.complainant and the learned APP for the State. 2. By judgment and order dated 19.6.2007 the learned Magistrate convicted the applicant under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The applicant came to be sentenced to suffer SI for three months and was directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant by way of compensation, in default, SI for one month. Being aggrieved by the said judgment ..(2).. and order, the applicant preferred appeal before the Sessions Court. By judgment and order dated 19.3.2008 the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision. 3. The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the cheque was not issued in respect of any legally enforceable liability. He submitted that in such case, no offence under Section 138 of NI Act is made out against the applicant. This aspect has been considered in detail by both the Courts below and thereafter the applicant came to be convicted under Section 138 of N.I.Act by the learned Magistrate. The appeal preferred by the applicant has also been dismissed. No case is made out for interference. Criminal Revision Application is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)