mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLN NO.288 of 2006 Balasaheb V. Yewale .. Applicant versus Mahendra Mane & ors. .. Respondents ... Ms.Archana B. Kolelgi i/b T.S.Ingale for the applicant. Mr.D.P.Adsule APP for the State. CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J DATED : 7th March 2008 P.C.: 1. This revision application at the instance of the original complainant takes exception to the judgement and order of the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Thane dated 2th May 2006 passed in Criminal Appeal no.78 of 2005. 2. The case of the applicant is that the respondent no.1 issued to him three cheques totally amounting to Rs.81,500/- towards discharge of his liability. The first cheque is dated 15th November 2002 for Rs.3,625/-. Second cheque is also dated 15th November 2002 for an amount of Rs.16,375 and the third cheque is dated 15th October 2002 for Rs.61,500/-. All the three cheques when presented were dishonoured. The applicant, after issuance of a notice and on failure of the respondent no.1 to deposit the money launched prosecution for an offence punishable u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned Magistrate held respondent no.1 guilty and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for one year and also directed him to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and in default to suffer imprisonment for three months. 3. Aggrieved respondent no.1 filed an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal no.78 of 2005 in the court of sessions. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence of Simple Imprisonment from one year to 4 months and also reduced the amount of compensation to Rs.40,000/-. Aggrieved by the said decision, the applicant is in revision. 4. The learned Sessions Judge held that the date on the cheque for Rs.61,500/- was altered from 15th October 2000 to 15th October 2002. Therefore, the cheque was not presented within six months of the due date and was not valid. Learned Sessions Judge therefore convicted the respondent for the offence only in respect of two cheques of Rs.3,625/- and Rs.16,375/-. Consequently, he reduced the amount of compensation to Rs.40,000/- being twice the amount of dishonoured cheques and also reduced the quantum of Simple Imprisonment. 5. The learned Sessions Judge has given cogent reasons in paragraph no.10 of his order for coming to the conclusion that the date on the cheque of Rs.61,500/- was altered. That is a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence and in the absence of any perversity is not open for challenge in the revision petition. 6. In view of the fact that one out of the three cheques which constituted the major amount was not valid as it was not presented within six months of the due date the learned Sessions Judge was right in reducing the amount of compensation by excluding the amount of the said cheque. Similarly, the discretion exercised by him for good reasons by reducing the sentence form one year to four months cannot be questioned in revision. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the revision which is hereby dismissed summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J)