(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Revision Application No. 132 of 2009 Ganesh s/o. Gangaram Bingi, Age : 44 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Laxminarayanpura, Mastgad, Jalna, Taluka & District : Jalna. .. Applicant. versus Gaurishankar Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Mardiyat, Jalna, Through its Manager, Mr. Sandeep Sudhakarrao Kshire, R/o. Sanjay Nagar, Old Jalna, Taluka & District : Jalna. .. Respondent. .......................... Mr. N.N. Chitlange, Advocate, for the applicant. Respondent served (Absent). .......................... (2) CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATE : 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 COURT'S ORDER : 1. This revision application is moved by the original accused, challenging the judgment and order dated 28th August 2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Jalna, in Criminal Appeal No. 16/2005, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the revision applicant. By the impugned order, the appellate court has confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna, in STC No. 189/2003, dated 7th February 2005. 2. The revision applicant (original accused) was tried of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and was found guilty of the same. The trial court has sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for one month. The appeal filed by the revision applicant is dismissed by the appellate court. Hence, the present revision. (3) 3. It is a common ground that the respondent is a Cooperative Credit Society, of which the revision applicant / accused is a member. It is also a common ground that the revision applicant / accused sought certain loan from the Society and the Society sanctioned loan of Rs. 23,000/- in January 2002 to the revision applicant. The amount was disbursed. It is also a common ground that this amount of loan was to be repaid in 24 monthly instalments of Rs. 1200/-. 4. In December 2002, since the instalments were not paid by the revision applicant, the amount due was demanded and in repayment of the same, the cheque, in question, of Rs. 10,000/-, was given. The cheque was dishonoured. The defence of the revision applicant was that this cheque was taken from him in January 2002 when the loan was disbursed and so the cheque did not represent any legal liability. During the cross examination, the Society's Manager admitted that the revision applicant had probably deposited three or four instalments before issuing of the cheque. 5. The learned Advocate appearing for the revision applicant has tried to take advantage of the aforesaid admission given by the Society's Manager, so as to put forward a new defence. He pointed out that if within eight months, his client (4) had deposited three to four monthly instalments of Rs. 1200/-, he must have repaid an amount of Rs. 4000/- or Rs. 5000/- to the Society. In view of this, he said, by December 2002, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- could not have been due from the revision applicant. He asserted that the cheque, in question, did not represent a legal liability of his client. 6. I am afraid, this defence is created today, by the learned Advocate appearing for the revision applicant. This was never a defence of the revision applicant while prosecuting the case before the trial court or the appellate court. No submissions were made on this line before those courts. Therefore, I am not inclined to take into count the said defence. In view of this, the findings of the lower courts are lawful and correct. 7. In the result, the revision application fails and the same is dismissed. Bail bonds executed by the revision applicant stand cancelled. The revision applicant (original accused) be arrested and taken in custody to undergo the remainder sentence. ( A.V. NIRGUDE ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/kra132