1 cri.revn.appln.466.10 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 466 OF 2010 Vasudeo Kisan Kadam ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ... Respondents Mr. R.L. Majgaonkar for the applicant. Mrs.M.R. Tidke, A.P.P. for State. Mr. Amol Mhatre for respondent no. 2. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : MARCH 04, 2011 P.C. 1. This revision application challenges the concurrent findings of the courts below convicting the applicant of the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is the case of respondent no. 2 that he had given hand loan in the sum of Rs. 4 lacs. to the applicant on 13th September, 2006. The applicant had executed demand promissory note in favour of respondent no.2. He also issued a 2 cri.revn.appln.466.10 cheque post dated to 13th November, 2006 i.e. the cheque in question to respondent no. 2. When the cheque was presented for payment, the same was dishonoured for "funds insufficient". Respondent no. 2 thereafter issued statutory notice which was neither replied nor complied with by the applicant. Consequently the proceedings under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act came to be filed by respondent no. 2. 2. The defence of the applicant before the trial court was two- fold, firstly that the statutory notice was not served upon him and secondly that there was no debt due to respondent no. 2. Both the courts below have rejected the defence holding that the statutory notice was in fact served upon the applicant and he chose not to take any action pursuant thereto. This finding of the courts below gets substantiated by the averments made by the applicant in the present revision application in which he admits that he had received notice but claims that he could not reply the same as he was under tension. As regards the second contention also there is clear admission in the present revision application that the applicant had taken loan from respondent 3 cri.revn.appln.466.10 no. 2. Further there is no dispute as regards issuance of the cheque. In the circumstances, there is no infirmity in the orders of the courts below. Hence, revision application is dismissed. [Judge]