JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned advocates for the parties.

3. In this revision application, challenge is to the judgment and order dated 19.05.2022, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant challenging his conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gadchiroli for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (For short ‘N.I. Act’). Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gadchiroli, vide order dated 16.02.2017/17.02.2017, had convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rs. Thirty Five Lacs Only) and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 days.

4. In this order, for the purpose of convenience, the parties would be referred by their nomenclature in the complaint. The applicant was accused and the respondent- late Smt Kavita Madhukar Arjunkar was the complainant. According to the complainant, the accused had agreed to sell plot No. 5, from Survey No. 851/2, situated at Mouza Gadchiroli, together with the construction, to the complainant and one Prashant Mukhruji Malode for a consideration of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rs. Forty Lacs Only). This transaction was given finality by executing an agreement on 15.02.2015. The complainant and Prashant Malode paid a sum of Rs.33,00,000/- (Rs. Thirty Three Lacs Only) to the accused. The remaining amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rs. Seven Lacs only) was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. It is stated that for some reason or the other the accused canceled the transaction and as such, the agreement. In token of the refund of consideration he issued a Cheque bearing No. 003551, dated 28.02.2015, for Rs.25,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Lacs only), drawn on his saving account maintained with Bank of Maharashtra, Branch Armori, in favour of late Smt Kavita Arjunkar and issued two cheques, bearing Nos. 899853 and 899854, of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs. Four Lacs only) each dated 23.03.2015, in favour of Prashant Malode, drawn on his account maintained with Chatgaon Branch of State Bank of India. The complainant deposited the cheque for encashment with the Bank. The cheque was dishonored and returned on the ground of insufficiency of funds in the account of accused. The complainant issued statutory notice on 04.07.2015 and made a demand of amount. The accused, despite receipt of the notice neither paid the amount nor replied the notice. The complainant, therefore, approached the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gadchiroli by filing criminal complaint under Section 138 of the N. I. Act.

5. Pursuant to the process issued by the learned Magistrate, the accused appeared before the Magistrate. The complainant examined herself and one witness by name Sandip Prabhakar Muttelwar, an attesting witness to the agreement to sell dated 15.02.2015. Learned Magistrate found the evidence sufficient to prove the offence under Section 138 of the N. I. Act against the accused. Learned Magistrate, therefore, convicted and sentenced the applicant, as above. The accused preferred the appeal in the Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and maintained and confirmed the conviction and sentence. The correctness and legality of the said order has been questioned in this revision application.

6. I have heard Shri A. A. Dhawas, learned Advocate for the accused and Ms Sanchita Sontakke, learned Advocate for the complainant. Perused the record and proceedings.

7. Learned Advocate for the accused submitted that the accused had engaged inexperienced Advocate to defend himself and therefore, his case was not properly defended. Learned Advocate submitted that it has resulted into miscarriage of justice and therefore, o