@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
N. Ananda, J.@mdashThere are concurrent findings of courts below that petitioner (accused) has committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ''the Act''). This court while exercising revisional jurisdiction u/s 401 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.
2. The petitioner (accused) has sought to rebut the evidence adduced by respondent (complainant) on the ground that respondent (complainant) has failed to prove existence of legally recoverable debt. On the other hand, the petitioner has contended that he had given a blank cheque to respondent (complainant), who had assured to get police job to the son of younger sister of petitioner (accused). The trial court on appreciation of evidence has held this is a false plea put forth by petitioner (accused).
3. The petitioner (accused) has not disputed the contents of cheque and her signature on cheque. The petitioner (accused) has not disputed that cheque was drawn on the account held by him. The petitioner (accused) has not established that cheque was issued for some other purpose. The evidence of respondent (complainant) does not suffer from any discrepancies. The petitioner (accused) has failed to rebut presumption available u/s 139 of the Act. The learned Judge of I-appellate court on re-appreciation of evidence has confirmed the findings of trial court.
4. The courts below on proper appreciation of evidence have recorded concurrent findings and arrived at proper conclusions. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The revision petition is dismissed.
