-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.234 of 2007. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.234 of 2007. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.234 of 2007. Aslam Ishaque Bagwan ..Applicant versus Irfan Ashrafali Sayyed & Another ..Respondent Mr.K.S.Patil for the Applicant Mr.Subodh Desai for the Respondent No.1 CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 2ND JUNE, 2008 DATED : 2ND JUNE, 2008 DATED : 2ND JUNE, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned Advocates on both sides. The applicant was convicted by the learned JMFC No.5, Link 1, Pune in STC No.3505 of 2001 being case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments -2- Act. This Order of conviction has been confirmed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune by his judgment dated 24.4.2007 in Criminal Appeal No.271 of 2003. Being aggrieved by this Order dated 24.1.2007, the accused has preferred this revision. 2. After having heard learned advocates on both sides and on perusing the record it is required to be observed that the learned trial Judge has appreciated the entire evidence in its proper perspective and the defence put up by the applicant has been rightly negatived in as much as the letter dated 17.9.2001 to which reference is found in the body of the judgment was not confronted with the complainant respondent when he was cross examined and the said letter came to be produced for the first time in the examination in chief of the applicant. This aspect has been rightly dealt with and the learned trial judge has rightly observed that the said letter appears to have been prepared for the purpose of creating false defence. 3. The case of the applicant that a sum of -3- Rs.40,000/- was borrowed by him from the respondent and a blank cheque was given by way of security has been rightly negatived because the complainant has accepted that the complainant received Rs.40,000/- from the respondent No.1 towards the repayment of the loan of Rs.40,000/-. In addition to this there is a document of agreement to sale in favour of the complainant respondent and that probably explains the case of the complainant as regards advancing sum of Rs.2,50,000/- by way of part payment and issuing the cheque by the applicant towards the repayment of the said amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as the applicant was not inclined to finalise the transaction. 4. The courts below have considered the entire record in its proper perspective and no fault can be found in both the orders. No intereference is required by this Court and the application is required to be dismissed. Hence the order. ORDER . Revision is dismissed in limine. -4- . The applicant shall surrender to his bail on or before 10.7.2008. (R.Y.GANOO, J.) (R.Y.GANOO, J.) (R.Y.GANOO, J.)