:1: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.15 OF 2006 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders. of Coram, appearance, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.S.B.Shetye for the Applicant. Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP. for the State. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE,J. DATED : 20/1/2006. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This is a revision application impugning the conviction by the two lower courts for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The J.M.F.C. vide his order dated 19.4.2004 convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to suffer one month Simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer Simple imprisonment for seven days. The applicant challenged the said order in appeal. The appeal was partly allowed by the Sessions Judge, :2: Ratnagiri vide his judgment and order dated 22.12.2005 and though the conviction was upheld the sentence was modified and fine of Rs.75,500/- was imposed on the accused in default of payment of such fine simple imprisonment for six months was also imposed. An amount of Rs,75,000/- was directed to be paid to the complainant. It was argued that the accused had rebutted the presumption of consideration by adducing evidence that prior to the bouncing of the cheque notice was given for return of the cheque and police complaint had been filed to the police Station making a grievance that the cheque had not been returned inspite of the notice. The accused also stepped into the witness box. On perusing the evidence, I find that there is no rebuttal of presumption. Though the accused had contended that he never took a loan, he has admitted that there was talk of giving loan of Rs.75,000/-. He has not given the exact date when he had handedover the cheque. He stated about :3: the complaint offering him loan of Rs.50,000/- by taking interest of Rs.25,000/-. There is no mention as to when such offer was made. The evidence of the accused is conveniently vague. It was then argued that the J.M.F.C. Court had no right to impose a fine and therefore, the Sessions Court in appeal would not have imposed such fine. In my view, there is no substance in any of the contention raised. The order passed by the Sessions court is confirmed with the modification that the accused is liable to pay fine of Rs.500/-and will be liable to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/-within a period of 60 days from today in default to suffer S.I. for 6-months. From the amount of compensation, if paid, an amount of Rs.75,000/- will be paid over to the complainant. Accordingly, with the above modification in the impugned order, the revision application is disposed off. (R. S. MOHITE, J.) :4: