1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.476 OF 2008 Mr.Cyril Thomas Rodricks ..Applicant Vs. Mahendra Pukhraj Mehta & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. A.M. Saraogi, for the Applicant. Mr. Prashant Chande, for the Respondent no.1. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State. CORAM: A.S. OKA, J. DATE: 9TH JULY, 2009. P.C.: 1. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the earlier date. The applicant in this revision application is the original 2nd accused and the first respondent is the complainant. The first respondent filed a complaint alleging commission of the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as  the said Act ). 2 2. The first respondent alleged that he is the proprietor of M/s Sterlite Metal and Traders. The case is made by the first respondent is that he supplied certain raw material to the firm of the applicant. Certain payments were made by the applicant, but a sum of Rs.10,70,542.80 remained due and payable. The case is that the applicant had drawn a cheque on 5th November 2003 in the sum of Rs. 10,45,000/- towards dues in favour of the first respondent. The said cheque was dishonoured. After giving demand notice dated 3rd February 2004, the complaint has been filed by the 1st respondent alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the said Act. 3. The defence of the applicant was that though he had signed the cheque, he had handed over the same to one Mr. Navnath. According to him the said Navnath is an employee of the first respondent complainant and at the time of giving the said cheque, it was a blank cheque which was handed over as a security. It is contended that the cheque was to remain in the custody of the first respondent as a security. 3 4. The trial court passed an order of conviction against the applicant holding that the applicant-2nd accused had signed the cheque as a partner of the 1st accused on whose account the cheque was drawn. He was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. An appeal was preferred before the Sessions Court which has been dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that no evidence was adduced by the first respondent to show that any amount was due and payable by the firm of the applicant i.e. the 1st accused to the first respondent. It was submitted that in absence of any evidence to show that there was a legally recoverable debt, the prosecution could not have succeeded. He submitted that the liability of the accused no.1 was not established. He submitted that when the cheque was handed over, the same was a blank cheque which was obviously to be retained by the first respondent as a security. The learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent supported the impugned order. 4 6. I have considered the submission. I have perused the impugned judgments and orders. It must be stated that one of the contentions raised before the trial court was that the notice of demand was addressed in the name of the father of the applicant. The learned trial judge found that the postal acknowledgment of registered post was signed by the applicant and that the applicant replied to the said notice. The learned judge noted that the notice was not only received by the applicant but it was also replied to by the applicant. 7. The case made out by the applicant is that the cheque was signed by him, but it was a blank cheque and the understanding was that the said blank cheque will be retained by the first respondent as a security. It must be borne in mind that a presumption under section 139 of the said Act was attracted and therefore the question was whether the presumption stood rebutted. The finding of the trial court is that the said presumption was not rebutted. In the impugned judgments and orders it is noted that 5 applicant had issued the cheque towards part payment of liability. It was observed that it was not disputed that the cheque was issued by the applicant and the cheque was drawn on the account of the 1st accused firm. 8. The learned Sessions Judge noted that from the reply sent by the applicant to the notice it appears that it was an admitted position that applicant was dealing with the first respondent from the year 1997 and there were transactions upto April 2000. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge observed that even applicant has not denied that there were business transactions with the 1st respondent. Considering all the aspects, the finding recorded by the courts below is that the cheque was admittedly issued by the applicant towards outstanding dues and the same has been dishonoured. The scope of a revision application is very limited. It is not permissible to reappricate the evidence. In this case the findings are not shown to be perverse. It must be noted here that notwithstanding the cheque amount, 6 the trial court directed the applicant to pay fine in the sum of only Rs.5000/-. 9. There is no merit in the revision application and the same is rejected. 10. It will be open for the first respondent to withdraw a sum of Rs.1 lac deposited by the applicant in this court after expiry of period of 12 weeks from today. (A.S.OKA, J)