( 1 ) 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. 256 of 2008. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 256 of 2008. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 256 of 2008. WITH WITH WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 221 of 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 221 of 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 221 of 2008 Crescent Builders and Ors ..Applicants. Vs. Manilal Chunilal Sanghvi and Ors ..Respondents. Mr D. M. Gupte, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr S. R. Shinde, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. DATED : 26th JUNE, 2008. DATED : 26th JUNE, 2008. DATED : 26th JUNE, 2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard rival parties. Perused the petition. 2. This revision is directed against the judgment and order, dated 2.5.2008, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 265 of 2006 by the Assistant ( 2 ) Sessions Judge, Pune confirming the judgment and order dated 7.6.2006 in Criminal Case No. 2025 of 2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.8, Pune, holding the applicant (original Accused No.2) guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("the N.I.Act") and sentencing him to suffer S.I. for six months with further direction to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.5,50,000/- to the respondent (the original complainant) and suffer S.I. for three months in default thereof. 3. The first submission canvassed by the learned counsel for the Applicants is that the notice under section 138 of the N.I.Act has not been served on the accused for want of correct address. He submits that the address of the Applicants is "Ghorpade peth, Pune" while the envelope containing notice at Exhs. 32 and 33 carried address of the Applicants as "288, Ghorpadi Peth, Pune-411042". As such, though the said notice carried postal endorsement "refused" it cannot be presumed as good service. ( 3 ) 4. The submission made has already been rejected by both the Courts below. Whether or not the address is correct is a question of fact. Concurrent findings of facts on the correctness of the address is against the applicants. As such, submission made is misplaced. Even otherwise, the address of the applicants, given in the complaint, is the same, which was on the "R.P.A.D. envelope. On the same address, the applicants were served with the summons. The applicants did not lead any evidence in support of their contention to rebut the presumption. In this view of the matter, the submission made cannot be accepted. In view of the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below with the address mentioned on the notice was correct and refusal amounted to good service. 5. The second contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicants is that the promissory note executed by the applicants was not signed by them, though the stamp paper of Rs. 100/- on which it was scribed was purchased by Accused No.2 under his signature. He, thus, submits that the blank stamp paper given to the ( 4 ) complainant was misused by him, on which he has typed acknowledgement showing receipt of Rs. 5,50,000/- and consequent delivery of the subject cheque with an assurance of encashment on due date. 6. The defence sought to be put up and canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicants cannot be accepted again on the face of concurrent findings of facts suffered by the applicants. 7. The delivery of stamp paper carrying his signature on the first page to the complainant is not in dispute. The submission is that the said stamp paper has been misused but no complaint in this behalf was lodged with police nor any notice was issued to the complainant calling upon him to return the said stamp paper or not to make use of it. 8. It appears that delivery of non-judicial stamp paper and the cheque is simultaneous. The contents of the stamp paper mention the details of the cheque issued. The endorsement on the ( 5 ) stamp paper indicates that it was purchased on 27.2.2004, whereas date of the cheque is 30.4.2004. It was open for the applicants to question the whereabouts of the allegedly given blank stamp paper, at least, on the date when the subject cheque was delivered. No such efforts were made by the applicants. At any rate, no material is available on record to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that the blank stamp paper was misused. 9. In my considered view, the presumption under section 138 of the N. I. Act has not been rebutted by the complainant. The promissory note is always presumed to be backed by consideration unless rebutted in accordance with law. In the instant case, the complainant has not only received the promissory note but has also received along with it, subject cheque for repayment of legally payable debt. 10. At this juncture, it is also necessary to note the length and breadth of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, which is made clear ( 6 ) in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Gurucharandas Chaddha, State of Rajasthan vs. Gurucharandas Chaddha, State of Rajasthan vs. Gurucharandas Chaddha, AIR 1979 SC 1895. AIR 1979 SC 1895. AIR 1979 SC 1895. In the revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot reappreciate evidence. The view taken by the Court below is a reasonable and possible view based on evidence. 11. In the above view of the matter, no fault can be found with the impugned order. In the result, the revision application is dismissed in limini with no order as to costs. JUDGE. JUDGE. JUDGE.