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 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No.129 of 2008. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No.129 of 2008. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No.129 of 2008. Sajjan Mahadev Gidde ..Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr ..Respondents. Mr Sudhir Halli, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs A. T. Zaveri, A.P.P. for the State - Respondent No.1. Mr Sachin Pawar h/f Mr S. S. Salunkhe, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. DATED : 20.06.2008. DATED : 20.06.2008. DATED : 20.06.2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard. 2. Perused application and the material available on record. 3. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.3.2008 passed by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2005 dated 27.6.2005 confirming the order of conviction passed by Judicial Magistrate, First ( 2 ) Class Madha in S.T.C. No. 465 of 2001 convicting the applicant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881 ("the N.I.Act" for short) and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for one year with direction to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 3 lacs to the complainant. The accused was also given liberty to pay the said amount in three instalments within next three months from the date of the order by the trial Court. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is erroneous, perverse and suffers from non application of mind. He further submits that the complainant-respondent No.2 did not establish that she was in a position to advance money as she was the wife of a truck driver. He further submits that the husband of the complainant, working as a driver on the truck owned by the applicant-accused, used in possession of the blank cheques duly signed by the accused. One of such cheques was mis-used by the wife of the driver complainant - Respondent No.2. He, thus, ( 3 ) submits that there was no legally payable debt, as such, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. The above submissions were strongly opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the Complainant-Respondent No.2. He submits that concurrent findings of fact were recorded by the Courts below holding that the cheque given by the accused was in discharge of legally enforceable liability. As such, it will not be open for this Court either to set aside concurrent findings of fact or reappreciate evidence unless this Court comes to the conclusion that findings recorded are found perverse and based on no evidence. He further submits that when the first cheque was dishonoured, negotiations took place between the parties. Compromise was arrived at and fresh cheque was issued in lieu of earlier dishonoured cheque. Therefore, the first cheque became meaningless. 6. The complainant has testified that she had given Rs. 2 lacs as hand loan to the accused since he was in need of money for the purpose of ( 4 ) repairing the truck owned by him. The cheque given by the accused was put for encashment. The same was returned unpaid for want of funds. Notice was issued under Section 138 of the N.I. Act calling upon the accused to pay money for which cheque was issued. He failed to discharge his liability. Consequently, complaint was filed. 7. Having heard both parties, if the bond was executed by the accused, acknowledging debt and if the same was acted upon by issuing fresh cheque, then, it can not be said that it was issued for no consideration. The witness examined by the applicant-accused said to be a cleaner of the truck, working with the husband of the complainant, is the son-in-law of the accused. It is not possible to rely on his evidence. The accused went to the extent of projecting his son-in-law as a cleaner to further his defence. Thus, taking over all view of the matter, no case is made out to entertain this revision. 8. Even otherwise, this Court not being a ( 5 ) Court of appeal is not expected to reappreciate the evidence. At this juncture, it is also necessary to note the limited jurisdiction of this Court, spelt out in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. State of Rajasthan vs. State of Rajasthan vs. Gurucharandas Chaddha, AIR 1979 SC 1895. Gurucharandas Chaddha, AIR 1979 SC 1895. Gurucharandas Chaddha, AIR 1979 SC 1895. In ultimate analysis no fault can be found with the impugned order. 9. In the result, the revision application is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE. JUDGE. JUDGE.