Judgment 1. The orders were dictated on 02.03.2015 in the open Court and before signing the order, the matter is listed today, under the caption, 'for being mentioned', to get a clarification, with regard to the enhancement of compensation with default sentence awarded by the lower appellate Court, to the 2nd revision petitioner / 2nd accused. 2. The revision petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in STC No.538 of 2004, on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai and the respondent herein has prosecuted them for the commission of offence under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial Court, after full-fledged trial, has convicted the second accused, being the proprietor of the first accused Firm, and sentenced him to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, with a default sentence of three months simple imprisonment. Further, the trial Court has convicted the first accused to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment and since the first accused is the Firm, the trial Court directed to the 2nd accused, who is the proprietor of the Firm, to pay the said amount. 3. The accused, aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, had preferred an appeal in C.A.No.126 of 2007. The respondent / complainant, aggrieved by the inadequacy of sentence, has filed C.R.P.No. 2 of 2010, before the Principal Sessions Court, Madurai and it was made over to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge / FTC No.2, Madurai. The lower appellate Court vide impugned common judgment, dated 31.03.2010 has confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence of imprisonment into one of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with default sentences of six months simple imprisonment. The accused aggrieved by the said common order passed by the lower appellate Court, has filed these revisions petitions. 4. When the matter was listed on 19.06.2014, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has informed the Court that in spite of many notices sent, the revision petitioners did not choose to respond and taking note of the same, this Court appointed the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners himself as 'Amicus Curiae' to argue the revisions on merits. Accordingly, the learned Amicus Curiae made his submissions on merits. 5. Accordingly, the learned Amicus Curiae made his submissions on merits. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners that the husband of the respondent herein, who advanced money, has no means to advance such a sum and in respect of an earlier transaction, she obtained two promissory notes as well as letter and the said fact has spoken to by P.Ws.2 and 3 and subsequently, she has also obtained cheques by way of security which have been utilized for the purpose of filing the said case and the Courts below have overlooked many inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses and prays for setting aside the impugned judgment and acquittal of the revision petitioners / accused. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent / complainant would contend that the Courts below have recorded the concurrent findings as to the guilt on the part of the revision petitioners / accused with regard to the commission of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and this Court in exercise of it's revisional jurisdiction may not re-appreciate the evidence unless it comes to the conclusion that the findings are based on no evidence and there was no perversity in appreciation of evidence and hence, prays for dismissal of the revisions. 7. The Court heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent / private complainant and perused the impugned judgment passed by the Courts below. 8. The first revision petitioner is the Firm selling medical instruments and the 2nd petitioner is it's proprietor and he was a friend of the husband of the respondent / complainant. The 2nd accused on behalf of the first accused firm, got a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- in order to develop his business and also made a promise to repay the same within a period of six months and towards discharge of the said loan, issued two cheques for a sum of Rs,1,50,000/- each on 16.06.2004 and 01.08.2004 respectively. The respondent, on his instructions, presented the first cheque for collection on 07.09.2004 and it was dishonoured for the reason ' funds insufficient'. The respondent, on his instructions, presented the first cheque for collection on 07.09.2004 and it was dishonoured for the reason ' funds insufficient'. Immediately, the respondent met the second revision petitioner / 2nd accused and asked about the dishonour of the said cheque and on his instructions, presented the second cheque for collection and it was also met with same fate. Immediately the respondent / complainant issued a statutory notice on 01.10.2004, marked as Ex.P6 and it was returned with an endorsement, 'no such addressee', however, the notice addressed to the second revision petitioner / 2nd accused was received, for which, he sent a reply in Ex.P8 and according to the complainant, it contains false averments. The defence projected by the second revision petitioner is that he never obtained loan from the complainant, but he had acquaintance with her husband and had obtained the loan of Rs.3,50,000/- under two instalments and towards security for the same, he obtained two pro-notes and collateral security letter and subsequently, also obtained two cheques. The revision petitioners also pleaded discharge in respect of a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. The Courts below had taken into consideration the fact that there was acquaintance between the husband of the respondent and the revision petitioners / accused. Though discharge was pleaded, there was no iota of materials to substantiate the same and further taking into consideration the fact that the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act have been made out, it has convicted both of them under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The lower appellate Court has recorded the reasons for enhancement of fine and disposed of the appeal as well as the revision. 9. The plea made by the revision petitioners is one of discharge and admittedly, no evidence was let in, in that regard and the signatures in the said cheques have not been disputed. Therefore, the initial burden is on the revision petitioner to discharge the burden cast upon, but they have failed to do so. According to the revision petitioners, the husband of the respondent while advancing the loan also got promissory notes and collateral security letter and admittedly, the second revision petitioner did not take any steps to get back those documents. 10. According to the revision petitioners, the husband of the respondent while advancing the loan also got promissory notes and collateral security letter and admittedly, the second revision petitioner did not take any steps to get back those documents. 10. As already pointed out, the revision petitioner/2nd accused failed to produce any materials to support his plea of discharge, the trial Court, on a threadbare analysis of oral and documentary evidences has reached the conclusion to convict both the revision petitioners under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the lower appellate Court, on the materials placed before it, has thought fit to modify and enhance the fine. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners made an alternate plea that since the lower appellate Court has enhanced the fine to Rs.4,00,000/-, with default sentence, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the 2nd revision petitioner / 2nd accused may be set aside. 12. In the light of the modification of fine with default sentence ordered by the lower appellate Court, this Court is of the view that the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the 2nd revision petitioner / 2nd accused is to be set aside and however, in other respects, the Judgment of the lower appellate Court requires no modification. 13. There was no serious objection in deleting / setting aside the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the 2nd revision petitioner / 2nd accused. 14. In the result, both the Criminal Revision Petitions are dismissed. The conviction under Section 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act imposed on the revision petitioners / accused is confirmed. However, the sentence of simple imprisonment of one year awarded to the 2nd revision petitioner / second accused is set aside. In other respects, the common Judgment, dated 31.03.2010 passed in C.A.No.126 of 2007 and C.R.P.No.2 of 2010, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.II), Madurai, is confirmed. 15. The 2nd revision petitioner / 2nd accused are granted four weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to deposit the compensation, as ordered by the lower appellate Court, failing which, the Court of Judicial Magistrate shall take necessary steps to secure the custody of the second revision petitioner / 2nd accused to undergo the period of default sentence of imprisonment awarded by the lower appellate Court.