N. Ananda, J.

1. There are concurrent findings of the courts below that petitioner (accused) has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The law is fairly well settled that revisional court does not act as a court of second appeal. The revisional court can interfere with the impugned judgment if the courts below have committed glaring discrepancies in appreciation of evidence resulting in manifest injustice to petitioner.

2. Sri. P.V. Gunjal, learned counsel for petitioner has raised following contentions:

i). That legal notice caused by petitioner is not in accordance with Section 138(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

ii) The Secretary of complainant society did not have locus-standi to present the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for respondent would justify the impugned judgment.

4. Sri. P.V. Gunjal, learned counsel for petitioner/accused has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court reported in 2007 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 973 : 2007 (6) R.A.J. 223 : Cri. A 525/2005 dated 02.11.2007 (in the case of M/s. Rahul Builders v. M/s. Arihant Fertilizers & Chemical & Another) to contend that, what should be demanded in the notice is the chequ