SSK/903 1 revn 277.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 277 OF 2011 Sukhdev Shankar Mane ....Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. Mahindra A Patil, advocate for the applicant. Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP for the State. Mr. G. C. Sawant, Advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 28th NOVEMBER, 2011. P.C.: Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The revision arises out of applicant’s conviction for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The conviction is confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge in revision. The applicant had taken a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from respondent no.2-Patsanstha and in discharge thereof gave five cheques. The applicant did not dispute his signatures on the said cheques. Admittedly, when the cheques were presented by the complainant, the same were dishonoured, and the complainant thereafter issued statutory notice and filed a complaint. Prima-facie, presumption that the cheques were issued in discharge of the SSK/903 2 revn 277.11 applicant’s liability is not rebutted, inasmuch as, the applicant did not enter into the witness box. Inspite of the statutory notice, the applicant did not pay the amount to respondent no.2-complainant. Learned Magistrate, after having considered the evidence on record, convicted the applicant, which conviction is confirmed by the lower appellate court in an appeal. The applicant on 19th July, 2011 made a statement that he is willing to settle the dues of respondent no.2. However, he has not abided by this statement. Taking overall facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason so as as to enable me to interfere in the aforesaid revision in the jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The criminal revision application is, accordingly, dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)