1. There is no representation for the revisionist.

Mr. Rakshit Srivastava, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Ramji Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent.

2. These Criminal Revisions have been preferred by the revisionist challenging the common judgment and order dated 10.09.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Appeal Nos. 34 of 2015 and 38 of 2015, whereby the Appeals preferred by the revisionist were dismissed. The revisionist has also assailed the common judgment and order dated 05.02.2015 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate-III, Dehradun in Criminal Case No.1363 of 2013 and Criminal Case No.1104 of 2013, whereby she was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

3. Briefly stated, the respondent-complainant instituted two separate complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that, in discharge of her legally enforceable liability, the revisionist issued cheque No.024522 dated 27.10.2008 for a sum of ₹3,20,000/- and cheque No.024521 dated 16.10.2008 for a sum of ₹6,50,000/- in favour of the respondent. At the time of issuance of the cheques, the revisionist assured the respondent that the cheques would be duly honoured upon presentation. However, when the cheques were presented for encashment within their validity period, both were dishonoured by the bank on account of "insufficient funds". Thereafter, the respondent served separate statutory demand notices upon the revisionist in respect of both the cheques. Despite service of the notices, the revisionist failed to make payment of the cheque amounts within the prescribed statutory period. Consequently, the respondent instituted separate complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Upon taking cognizance, the learned trial Court summoned the revisionist. After recording the evidence of the parties and considering the material available on record, learned Special Judicial Magistrate-III, Dehradun, vide common judgment and order dated 05.02.2015, convicted the revisionist for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The revisionist was sentenced till the rising of the Court and was further directed to pay compensation of ₹4,00,000/- in Criminal Case No.1363 of 2013 and ₹7,00,000/- in Criminal Case No.1104 of 2013 to the respondent within one month. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.34 of 2015 and Criminal Appeal No.38 of 2015 before the learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun. Both the appeals came to be dismissed by a common judgment and order dated 10.09.2015, affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court. Hence, the present Criminal Revisions.

4. Initially, the revisionist was represented by Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel. However, in the year 2017, the revisionist appeared in person on only one occasion and thereafter remained absent from the proceedings. Subsequently, administrative notices were issued to secure her presence, but as per the service report submitted by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, the revisionist could not be traced at the address furnished by her, and the notices were returned unserved. Even today, when the matters were taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the revisionist despite the matters having remained pending for a considerable period.

5. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respondent and carefully perused the record of the case, including the judgments passed by the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court.

6. From the material available on record, it is evident that the respondent-complainant succeeded in establishing all the essential ingredients constituting an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The issuance of the cheques by the revisionist, their presentation within the period of validity, their dishonour on account of "insufficient funds", issuance of statutory demand notices within the prescribed period, and failure of the revisionist to make payment within the stipulated time stand duly proved. The learned trial Court, upon proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, recorded a finding of guilt against the revisionist. The said findings were independently re-appreciated by the learned appellate Court, which concurred with the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court.

7. It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited in scope. Unless the findings recorded by the Courts below suffer from patent illegality, perversity, material irregularity, or miscarriage of justice, this Court would not be justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact. In the present case, both the Courts below have meticulously appreciated the evidence available on record and have assigned cogent and convincing reasons for recording the conviction of the revisionist. This Court does not find any perversity, illegality or material irregularity in the appreciation of evidence or in the conclusions drawn by the Courts below.

8. Significantly, despite repeated opportunities, the revisionist has neither appeared before this Court nor addressed any arguments assailing the findings recorded by the Courts below. Administrative notices issued to secure her presence also remained unserved as she could not be traced at the address furnished by her. Even today, no one has appeared on her behalf. In such circumstances, this Court has independently examined the record to satisfy itself regarding the correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned judgments and finds no reason to take a view different from that taken by the Courts below.

9. The impugned judgment and order dated 05.02.2015 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate-III, Dehradun, as affirmed by the common appellate judgment and order dated 10.09.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun, are based upon proper appreciation of the evidence and correct application of law. The findings recorded therein are well reasoned and do not suffer from any infirmity, illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

10. Consequently, both the Criminal Revisions, being devoid of merit, are liable to be dismissed and are, accordingly, dismissed.