contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. It is settled principle of law, that this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, cannot interfere with the judgements of the Courts below, until and unless, it comes to the conclusion, that the same, are the result of misreading or misappreciation of evidence or non-consideration of material pieces of evidence. The Courts below, on due scrutiny of the evidence of J.S. Kalsi, Clerk/Cashier, OBC Bank, CW1, and, Harminder Singh, complainant, CW2, were right, in coming to the conclusion, that the same, was cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy, and, sufficient to hold the revision-petitioner guilty. C3 agreement, was also proved, by the complainant, in his statement. When C3 agreement, is read, as a whole, only one and one inescapable conclusion, that can be arrived at, is that, since the revision-petitioner, was in need of money, for the purchase of tractor, he obtained a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/-, from the complainant, and, issued two post-dated cheques. The cheques, duly supported by C3 agreement clearly go, to show, that the same, were issued, in the discharge of legally enforceable liability. Sufficient evidence, was, thus, led by the complainant, to prove this factum. Once the signatures of the revisionpetitioner, on the cheques, were proved or admitted, by him, then the statutory presumption, could be drawn, that the same, were for valid consideration. In this case, neither there was misreading of evidence, nor misappreciation thereof, nor non-consideration of material pieces of evidence. The judgements of conviction and the order of sentence,
