John Michael Cunha, J.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent.

2. This petition is filed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I. Act'). The petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,90,000/-, out of which, the sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation and the remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/- is ordered to be remitted to the State by way of fine.

3. The case of the complainant-respondent is that he is running money lending business and in the course of transaction, the petitioner-accused requested for hand loan of Rs. 95,000/- and availed the same on 26.01.2011 and in repayment thereof, issued post dated cheque bearing No. 922584 dated 26.02.2011 drawn on Canara Bank, Hegganahalli Cross Branch, Bengaluru. When the petitioner-accused failed to pay the amount, the complainant-respondent presented the cheque for encashment, however, the same was returned dishonoured for the reason 'funds insufficient'. The complainant got issued legal notice dated 09.09.2011. In spite of service of notice, the petitioner-accused failed to comply with the demand. Hence, the complainant initiated action under section 138 of N.I. Act before the learned Magistrate.

4. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to 10, such as-cheque, bank endorsement, copy of legal notice, postal receipt and acknowledgement, complaint, tax registration certificate, money lending licence and copies of income tax returns. In rebuttal thereof, the petitioner-accused examined himself as DW1, but did not produce any documentary evidence in support of his contention.

5. On appreciating this evidence, the learned Magistrate found that the defence set up by the petitioner-accused that the cheque in question issued by him by way of security has not been substantiated with cogent and convincing evidence, whereas, the complainant having proved the advancement of money as well as the issuance of cheque towards discharge of the legally recoverable debt due to him, found it proper to convict the petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him as above.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-accused carried the matter in appeal before the LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Cri.A. No. 1347/2015, wherein the petitioner-accused urged the very same contentions. However, on re-appreciating the evidence, the appellate Court having found no reason to interfere with the conviction order passed by the learned Magistrate, by the impugned order dated 15.04. 2016 has dismissed the appeal.

7. The petitioner has now sought to invoke the jurisdiction under section 397 of Cr.P.C., 1973 contending that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the material evidence in a proper perspective and it is contended that the defence set up by the petitioner-accused has not been considered by both the Courts and further, it is stated that the appellate Court has erred in taking into consideration the submission made by the petitioner-accused in respect of the compromise arrived at by the parties during the pendency of proceedings. It is contended that based on the said material, the appellate Court could not have formed an opinion with regard to the compliance of the ingredients of offence charged against the accused. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

8. On examining the material produced by the parties and the reasoning of the Courts below, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned orders. It is needless to say that the jurisdiction of the revisional Court under section 397 of Cr.P.C., 1973 is limited. In this regard, it is useful to refer to the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Am