IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 66 of 2011 Maniram …………..Revisionist. Vs State of Uttarakhand and another. …………..Respondents. Present : Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate for the revisionist and Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist challenging the judgment and order dated 2.7.2007 passed by the II Special Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Case No. 1309 of 2006 Nanhekha Vs. Maniram and order dated 24.1.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge / II F.T.C. Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2007 Maniram Vs. State. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.8.2004, two cheques bearing Nos. 777362 and 735436 were given by the revisionist to respondent no. 2. When respondent no. 2 presented one of the Cheques amounting to ` 50,000/- for being credited in his Bank Account, it was dishonoured. Thereafter, though respondent no. 2 served a registered notice on the revisionist for payment of the said amount, the amount was not paid by the revisionist to respondent no. 2. Consequently, respondent no. 2 filed a case against the applicant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The trial proceeded against the revisionist/accused and vide order dated 2.7.2007, the trial Court convicted and sentenced him under Section 138 of the Act, 1881, whereby the accused/revisionist has been directed to pay an amount of ` 50,000/- to the complainant 2 and in default he shall undergo an imprisonment of two years. Apart from it, fine of ` 2,500/- has also been imposed upon the accused/revisionist and in default of which four months of imprisonment has been imposed. Against the said order, the revisionist filed an Appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2007 Maniram Vs. State, which was also dismissed. This Court has perused the order-dated 2.7.2007 passed by the trial Court as well as order dated 24.1.2011 passed by the Appellate Court. This Court finds no anomaly whatsoever in the order of the trial Court as well as order of the Appellate Court. There is no plausible justification for interference by this Court under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. The instant criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 19.4.2011 Rathour