- (1.) Tersely, the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, are that, having completed all the codal formalities, the complaint filed by complainant Karamjit Kaur respondent No.2 (for brevity "the complainant"), the trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner-convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo RI for a period of two months for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as "the NI Act") as amended by the Banking, Public, Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 2002 (55 of 2002), by virtue of impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.9.2011.
(2.) Aggrieved thereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner-convict was dismissed as well, by the appellate Court, by way of impugned judgment dated 17.9.2012.
(3.) The petitioner-convict still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present revision petition, to challenge the impugned judgments of conviction & orders of sentence, invoking the provisions of Section 401 Cr.PC.;