JUDGMENT :

1. This revision has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 23.10.2019 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Hapur, in Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 2019 and impugned judgment and order passed by C.J.M./A.C.J.M., Hapur dated 23.9.2019 and order dated 25.9.2019 sentencing the accused appellant in case no. 34 of 2019 previously entered complaint no. 8496/2015 under Section 138 N.I. Act, P.S.Hapur Kotwali, DistrictHapur whereby the learned court below convicted and sentenced 1 years simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act and fine of Rs. 1 crore 20 lacs.

2. Heard Sri Mangla Prasad Rai, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vikas Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Saumitra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act were initiated against the revisionist with the allegation that two cheque no. 789636 and cheque no. 789637 dated 20.7.2014 for a sum of Rs. 5050 lacs each was issued by the revisionist, which has been bounced. Respondent no. 1 filed complaint case before the A.C.J.M, under Section 138 N.I. Act. The proceeding of complaint case has ultimately resulted in order of conviction awarding of one year simple imprisonment together with imposition of fine of Rs. 1 crores 20 lacs. The amount of fine to be appropriated by paying Rs. 1 crore 15 lacs to the complainant (respondent no. 1) and balance of Rs. 5 lacs to be deposited to the State.

4. Aggrieved by this judgment dated 25.9.2019 the revisionist has preferred an appeal before Sessions Court. This appeal has been admitted on 23.10.2019 and the revisionist has been enlarged on bail under Section 389 Cr.P.C. Further order has been passed upon the application filed by the revisionist to stay the conviction order/sentence awarded by learned Magistrate meanwhile respondent no. 1 also filed the application under Section 148 of the N.I. Act with prayer that whole fine should not be stayed as mandate given in Section 148 of the N.I. Act. After hearing Sessions Court passed the order to furnish 30% of the fine awarded by the trial court deposited within 30 days.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist filed revision on two grounds the first ground is to set aside the judgment and order dated 23.9.2018 passed by ACJM, Hapur and second prayer is to set aside the order dated 23.10.2018 passed by Sessions Court.

6. So far as regards first prayer upon which the revisionist has challenged the order dated 25.9.2019 by filing revision with submission that the judgment under revision is manifestly erroneous, not sustainable in law and learned trial court failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the complainant (respondent). It is further submitted that learned trial court has passed its judgment without any relevant and cogent reason. It has further been submitted that execution of the cheque has not been proved. He further prayed to allow the revision and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 25.9.2019 passed by ACJM, Hapur. On perusal of the record it appears that revisionist has already availed the statutory remedy before Sessions Court under Section 374 (3) Cr.P.C. by way of filing an appeal and thus the revisionist have full opportunity to review or reappreciate the evidence as adduced in trial court. The appeal is a continuation of the proceeding only such proceeding where parties were same and they are adversely affected by the judgment, then they may file appeal. As stated above as the revisionist has already availed opportunity of appeal before Sessions Court and appeal is admitted on 23.10.2019 before Sessions Court and presently appeal is pending before Sessions Court and every aspects of the case shall be tested during appeal. So by way of revision the revisionist cannot avail the parallel remedy. The revisionist cannot challenge the legality or impropriety of the order passed by