ORDER This revision is preferred by the accused who stands convicted in a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act both by the trial court as well as by the appellate court. 2. The complainant initiated the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act on the strength of a dishonoured cheque for a sum of Rs.29,000/-. It was returned dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of fund. After issuing a statutory notice, the complaint was laid. To substantiate the case of the complainant, he got himself examined as PW1. PW1 deposed that on 9/10/2007 the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from him for his personal needs and agreed to re-pay it with interest. A promissory note was also executed in the same day. In spite of repeated request, the money was not repaid. Ultimately, a cheque for a sum of Rs.29,000/- dated 12/7/2010 was executed and delivered. It was returned dishonoured. The accused took up a contention totally denying the execution and also delivery of the cheque. There was a bare denial of the handwriting and signature in the cheque. The accused did not even venture to lead any evidence and only relied on the evidence brought out in cross examination. The trial court, on an evaluation of the available materials, found that the version spoken by PW1 was consistent. It could not be demolished in cross examination. The defence set up by the accused was not proved by any cogent evidence much less any evidence. There was no reply to the statutory notice also. 3. The admitted execution of the promissory note also supported the case of the complainant. Hence, the court below concluded that the complainant has succeeded in proving the existence of the legally recoverable debt and the execution of a cheque. Hence, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo SI till rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.29,000/- to the complainant under section 357(3) Cr.P.C. In default, the accused was to undergo SI for one month. This was challenged in appeal. 4. The appellate court re-appreciated the entire evidence. Ultimately, it concurred with the findings and sentence imposed by the court below. The appellate court confirmed the sentence of imprisonment till the raising of the court and directed the accused to pay fine of Rs.30,000/- and in default to undergo SI for one month. This was challenged in appeal. 4. The appellate court re-appreciated the entire evidence. Ultimately, it concurred with the findings and sentence imposed by the court below. The appellate court confirmed the sentence of imprisonment till the raising of the court and directed the accused to pay fine of Rs.30,000/- and in default to undergo SI for one month. It was further directed that on deposit of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.29,000/- shall be given to the complainant as compensation. 5. On an evaluation of the entire evidence, as narrated above, I find no reason to interfere with the consistent finding of facts arrived at by both the courts. No reliable ground has been made out for interference in revision. The sentence imposed by the court below is also commensurate with the guilt proved. In the result, the revision is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the court below. The accused shall undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/- in default of which to undergo SI for one month. If the amount is received, a sum of Rs.29,000/- shall be given to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of Crl. P.C. The petitioner herein is granted three months time to discharge the liability. All coercive steps shall be kept in abeyance during the above period. If the sentence is not satisfied within three months, the court below will be free to initiate coercive steps after the expiry of three months.