IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 270 OF 2008 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 270 OF 2008 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 270 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 237 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 237 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 237 OF 2008 Ramdhari Devnarayan Mishra. ... Applicant. V/s. 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. Tejinder Singh Avatar Singh Abhedi. ... Respondents. D.M.Mishra with R.D.Pathak for the applicant. Ms.M.H.Mhatre, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 3rd July 2008. DATED: 3rd July 2008. DATED: 3rd July 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. By this revision, moved under section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C." for short), the applicant is challenging the order dated 23rd May, 2006 passed in Criminal Appeal No.21/2006 by the Sessions Judge, Thane whereunder the appeal came to be dismissed and the order of the trial Court dated 5th January, 2006 convicting the applicant under section 252(2) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("N.I.Act" for short) came to be confirmed. 3. The facts in short are that the applicant- accused got his vehicle repaired and issued cheque towards payment of repairing charges. The said cheque was returned unpaid for want of funds. Consequently notice under section 138 of the N.I.Act was issued by the complainant. The said notice remained to be complied with by the accused. It resulted in filing of complaint under section 138. 4. Both parties were given opportunity to lead evidence to prove their respective contentions. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Thane, after full trial vide his order dated 5th January, 2006, passed in C.C.No.136/2005, was pleased to hold that the cheque was given in discharge of legally enforceable debt and that the offence was committed under section 138 of the N.I.Act. The conviction was recorded. In appeal the order of conviction was affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Thane. Consideration : Consideration : Consideration : - 3 - ------------- ------------- ------------- 5. Being aggrieved by the above orders, these two revisions were filed. 6. Having heard both parties; having examined the judgment and orders passed by the trial Court as well as that of the lower appellate Court and looking to the findings recorded by the Courts below together with appreciation of evidence done by them no fault can be found with the view taken in the impugned orders. 7. The view taken by the Courts below is a reasonable and possible view in the facts and circumstances of the case. No perversity or unreasonable approach on the part of Courts below could be pointed out by the applicant. No case is made out to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below which are supported by evidence on record. 8. This Court not being a Court of appeal, cannot substitute its view in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revisional jurisdiction is not only limited in scope but also is discretionary. The Court - 4 - interferes in the revisional jurisdiction only in exceptional cases of flagrant miscarriage of justice as held by Apex Court in the case of State of State of State of Rajasthan v. Gurucharandas Chaddha, Rajasthan v. Gurucharandas Chaddha, Rajasthan v. Gurucharandas Chaddha, AIR 1979 SC 1895. If two views are possible on the basis of evidence on record, the higher Court should not disturb the findings of the trial Court is the settled law (see Varghese Thomas v. State of Kerala Varghese Thomas v. State of Kerala Varghese Thomas v. State of Kerala, 1977 SC 701). 9. In the above view of the matter, no case is made out to entertain these applications. Both applications are dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. 10. Applicant is directed to surrender to the order of the trial Court within two weeks from today. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE