JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

The present Criminal Revision has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Revisionist, assailing the judgment and order dated 07.06.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 2^nd Dehradun in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1059 of 2017, titled as “Shri Manoj Kumar vs. Shri Manoj Kumar” under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, whereby the Revisionist was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo six months’ simple imprisonment` along with a fine of Rs. 4,35,000/-, with a default stipulation as well as the judgment and order dated 08.12.2023 passed by the learned VI^th Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No.164 of 2019, by which the appeal preferred by the Revisionist was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court were affirmed.

2. The Revisionist and the Respondent No.2 are known to each other and were admittedly acquainted prior to the transaction in question. The proceedings arise out of a private complaint instituted by the Respondent alleging dishonour of cheque on account of insufficiency of funds. The Revisional Court is thus called upon to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below within the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records available on file.

4. Learned counsel for the Revisionist, Mr. Aditya Singh, submitted that the cheque in question was not issued in discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability. It was argued that the cheque had been handed over only as a security in relation to an arrangement concerning overseas employment of relatives and was subsequently misused by the complainant.

5. It was further contended that a Panchayat was held between the parties on 01.12.2016, pursuant to which `a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid to the complainant. According to learned counsel, evidence in support of the said Panchayat and payment was brought on record, but the same was not properly appreciated by the courts below.

6. Learned counsel also argued that the complainant failed to establish his financial capacity to advance the alleged amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- and that no documentary material was produced to substantiate the alleged transaction.

7. On these premises, learned counsel submitted that the conviction rests on presumptions alone, that the defence evidence has been ignored, and that the judgments under challenge suffer from perversity warranting interference in revision.

8. Per Contra, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2, supported by the learned Brief Holder for the State, submitted that both the Trial Court and the appellate court have recorded concurrent findings based on due appreciation of evidence and that no ground for interference in revisional jurisdiction is made out.

9. Learned counsel submitted that the defence of the cheque having been issued by way of security, as also the plea of an alleged Panchayat payment, was duly considered by the courts below and was rightly rejected as being unsubstantiated and insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption.

10. It was lastly argued that the present revision seeks re-appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible in revisional jurisdiction, and that the impugned judgments do not suffer from any illegality or perversity.

11. This Court has examined the matter bearing in mind the nature of the jurisdiction invoked. A revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC does not entail a rehearing of the case on facts. Yet, it obliges the Court to independently satisfy itself as to whether the findings recorded are legally sustainable, based on admissible evidence, and free from perversity or material irregularity. It is from this standpoint that the record has been scrutinised.

12. From the material placed on record, it clearly emer