N. Ananda, J.—The petitioner (hereinafter referred as ‘accused’) is before this Court against the concurrent findings of Courts below that he has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act’).

2. The law is fairly well settled that this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of Cr.P.C., does not sit as a Court of second appeal. This Court can interfere with the impugned judgment if the Courts below have committed glaring errors in appreciation of evidence or errors of law resulting manifest injustice to petitioner.

3. I have heard Sri B.A. Raviraj, learned Counsel for accused and Sri G. Chandrashekaraiah, learned Counsel for complainant.

4. The Trial Court accepting the evidence of complainant has held that accused had borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000 and she had issued two dishonoured cheques, one for a sum of Rs. 20,000 and the other for a sum of Rs. 30,000 to discharge aforestated liability. The Trial Court rejected the defence version that complainant had stolen cheques from the house of accused and misused the same to initiate the instant complaint. The learned Judge of First Appe