JUDGMENT

Prakash D. Naik, J. - The applicant has approached this Court by invoking revisional jurisdiction under sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment and order dated 15th April 1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pune in Criminal Case No.2197 of 1996 and judgment and order dated 6th November 2001 passed by Sessions Court, Pune in Criminal Appeal No.88 of 1998.

2. The applicant was prosecuted for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 which was numbered as Criminal Case No.2197 of 1996.

3. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows :

The complainant is a stock broker and deals in buying and selling of shares as his usual business on behalf of his clients. The accused approached the complainant to obtain his services and instructed him to enter into certain transactions on his behalf. The complainant duly complied with the instructions of the accused and on account of the same, a sum of Rs. 5,43,474/- was due as on 12th February 1996 along with interest thereon. Towards part payment and in discharge of liability, the applicant-accused issued three cheques drawn on Bank of Maharashtra. Cheque No.46300 dated 13th February 1996 for Rs. 1 lakh, cheque No. 046299 dated 8th February 1996 for Rs. 1.40 lakh and cheque No. 046298 dated 7th February 1996 for Rs. 1.45 lakh, were issued in favour of the complainant by the applicant-accused. All the three cheques in question were dishonoured by the bankers of the applicant-accused, when presented for encashment in the month of February 1996. The accused confirmed in writing the said dues as per statement of account in that behalf and further confirmed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,43,474/- with interest thereon @ 2.5% per month and further stated that the said cheques be presented again for encashment with undertaking to honour the same. The complainant deposited the said cheques in his bank on 3rd July 1996. However, the said cheques were returned by the bankers with remark "not arranged for". The complainant received the written memo on 4th July 1996 issued by the bankers of the applicant-accused through his bank on 5th July 1996. The complainant thereafter issued notice to the accused on 13th July 1996 through his advocate and called upon him to pay the amount of cheques. The said notice was received by the applicant-accused, however, he failed to pay the amount. The applicant-accused forwarded the reply dated 24th July 1996 through his advocate raising false contentions. It was stated that there is an agreement between the complainant and the applicant-accused not to deposit the cheques by the complainant. The complainant denied the said agreement and called upon the applicant-accused to give particulars and copies of the agreement, as contained in letter dated 4th August 1996 and 19th August 1996. Thereafter the complaint was filed on 26th August 1996 before the Court of learned JMFC, Cantonment, Pune.

4. The Trial Court took cognizance of the complaint and issued process against the applicant-accused. In pursuance of the Court summons, the accused appeared before the Court. The particulars of the offence were read over and explained to the applicant-accused. The complainant examined three witnesses in support of his complaint. Witness No. 1 is the complainant himself, witness No. 2 Ramchandra Puranik is the bank officer of Bank of Maharashtra and witness No. 3 Dhananjay The is the officer of Bank of Baroda, Pune Camp Branch. The applicant-accused examined himself as the defence witness. After recording the evidence and taking on record several documents, the learned Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 15th April 1998 convicted the applicant-accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and directed to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default, to suf