The petitioner Raju, accused of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, challenged concurrent findings of conviction by the trial court (Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli) and the appellate court (Additional Sessions Judge, Solan). The complainant Satpal Singh (since deceased, represented by his legal heirs) alleged that a cheque of ₹1,59,195/- issued by the accused was dishonoured with the remark 'exceeds arrangements', and that despite a statutory demand notice, the accused failed to pay. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to one year's simple imprisonment with a fine of ₹3,18,000/- (including ₹3,00,000/- compensation), which the appellate court partly upheld, reducing the sentence to six months. Before the High Court in revision, the accused argued, inter alia, that the complainant lacked authorisation to file the complaint, the cheque was issued as security, and the fine exceeded the Magistrate's power. The High Court, applying the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction as laid down in Kuntegowda v. Thurubaiah (2026 SCC OnLine SC 1485), examined only the correctness, legality, and propriety of the lower courts' findings rather than re-appreciating evidence as an appellate court.