ORDER : The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No. 1070/2015, C.C.No.1068/2015 and C.C.No.1069/2015 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court (N.I. Cases) Kozhikode, for offence alleged under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. These 3 summary trial cases have been instituted on the basis of 3 separate complaints in that regard preferred by the 1st respondent (complainant). A joint trial was conducted in these 3 cases and the trial court, as per the common judgment rendered on 27.1.2016 in the above cases has convicted the petitioner for the above offence. In C.C.No.1070/2016, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and directed to pay fine of Rs.1,40,000/- and in default thereof, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of one month. In C.C.No.1068/2015, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and directed to pay fine of Rs.1,25,000/- and in default thereof, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. In C.C.No. 1069/2015, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs.90,000/- and in default thereof, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. In all these cases, it has been ordered by the trial court that the fine amounts, if realised, shall be paid as compensation under Sec. 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. 2. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence imposed in these cases, the petitioner had preferred Crl.Appeal Nos.116, 117 and 119 of 2016 before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The appellate court as per the impugned judgment dated 26.10.2016 while affirming the above conviction, has modified the sentence by reducing the sentence to simple imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay fine of Rs.1,40,000/- Rs.1,25,000/- and Rs.90,000/- in the above cases and in default thereof, the accused was to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each in these 3 cases and fine amount, if realised, was directed to be given to the complainant as compensation under Sec. 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. It is this conviction and sentence so modified that is under challenge in the instant revision petitions. 3. Heard Sri.T.G.Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for revision petition accused and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-2 State. 3. Heard Sri.T.G.Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for revision petition accused and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-2 State. In the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed in these revisions, notice to R-1 (complainant) stands dispensed with. 4. The gist of the prosecution case is that the complainant is a partnership firm doing trade of various types of rices and other items of pulses, in the name and style of "M/s. Sree Balaji Enterprises". The complainant is represented by its power of attorney. That the accused, being a commission agent, used to purchase rice and other items from the complainant firm on credit basis in order to supply them to various other trade Rs.That accordingly on 2.12.2013, the accused has purchased rice from the complainant as an agent of "C.P. Store", Vanniyoor", for Rs.1,12,000/- on credit basis. That on the same day he had purchased rice for amount of Rs.1,10,000/-, for "Janatha Biriyani Store" Vanniyoor on credit basis and further on 25.1.2014, the accused had purchased rice for Rs.68,000/- as an agent of Sri.C.K.Hamsa, Koruthod Vengara, on credit basis. That as per the understanding between the parties, the accused was liable to pay a sums of Rs.2,90,000/- to the complainant. That even after receiving the amounts from the aforesaid concerns for whom, he had made the purchase, the accused had failed to pay the amount to the complainant. That subsequently, on 15.1.2015, Ext.P-9 agreement dated 5.1.2015 was executed between the complainant and the accused, as per which the accused admitted liability of Rs.2,90,000/- and towards discharge of the said liability, the accused had duly executed and issued 3 cheques in question viz., cheque dated 5.2.2015 for Rs.1,12,000/-, cheque dated 26.2.2015 for Rs.1,10,000/- and cheque dated 20.3.2015 for amount of Rs.68,000/- drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Kannur Road, Kozhikode. That all the entries in the cheques including dates, complainant's name and amounts were written in the handwriting of the accused. The cheques on presentation were dishonoured and after following the statutory formalities, the complainant had instituted the instant complaint. 5. Cognizance was duly taken in the said complaints, which were registered as C.C.Nos.1070/2015, C.C.No.1068/2015 and C.C.No. 1069/2015. A joint trial petition was filed in C.C.No. 1070/2015 for trial along with C.C.No.1068/2015 and C.C.No. 1069/2015 was allowed. C.C.No.1070/2015 was taken as the lead case, in which evidence was recorded. 5. Cognizance was duly taken in the said complaints, which were registered as C.C.Nos.1070/2015, C.C.No.1068/2015 and C.C.No. 1069/2015. A joint trial petition was filed in C.C.No. 1070/2015 for trial along with C.C.No.1068/2015 and C.C.No. 1069/2015 was allowed. C.C.No.1070/2015 was taken as the lead case, in which evidence was recorded. The power of attorney holder of the complainant firm was examined as P.W.1 and the complainant had marked Exts.P-1 to P-19 documents. The defence had not adduced any evidence. 6. The trial court and the appellate court have found that the complainant has satisfied all the requisite statutory formalities for the initiation of the complaint as per the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The revision petitioner has not raised any serious contention regarding the correctness of those findings. 7. As regards the crucial issue as to whether the cheques in question (Exts.P-3, P-16 and P-11) were issued and executed by the accused in discharge of an existing legally recoverable liability, the trial court had found as follows:- P.W-1, is the power of attorney holder of the complainant firm and he is the sales-man cum manager of the firm. P.W-1 has deposed that he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and he has direct knowledge about the transactions. Those facts asserted by the complainant were not in any manner challenged in cross examination of P.W-1. P.W.1 has also deposed that the accused used to purchase rice from the firm on credit basis. He also gave specific particulars of the 3 transactions in question relating to the purchase of rice on credit basis by the petitioner accused on behalf of his custome Rs.On 2.12.2013, the accused has purchased rice for Rs.1,10,000/- and on the same day, he had purchased rice for Rs.1,12,000/- and on 25.1.2014, he had purchased rice for Rs.68,000/- all on credit basis. Thus the accused was liable to pay a total sum of Rs.2,90,000/- to the complainant. Further it was deposed by P.W.1 that the complainant firm had demanded the said amount and the accused did not pay. Thus the accused was liable to pay a total sum of Rs.2,90,000/- to the complainant. Further it was deposed by P.W.1 that the complainant firm had demanded the said amount and the accused did not pay. Later Ext.P-9 agreement dated 5.1.2015 was executed by the petitioner accused in favour of the complainant, wherein the accused admitted his liability in the above transactions and he stated that he had received the full amount from the parties who were supplied rice commodity and the accused further admitted that he has defaulted in payment towards the price of the commodity to the complainant firm. That in these circumstances the accused had issued 3 separate cheques for Rs.1,12,000/-, Rs.1,10,000/- and Rs.68,000/-, which are marked as Exts.P-3, P-16 and P-11 respectively. 8. The accused sought to take refuge under the defence that he was constrained to default payment due to the bad quality of the rice supplied by the complainant and even in reply lawyer's notice, the accused has admitted the transactions and liability of debt towards the complainant's firm and he had taken up the plea that he had defaulted payment only due to bad quality of rice. That the rice supplied by the complainant was having foul smell and was infested with bugs and not fit for human consumption. Citing these aspects, the accused has justified his action in instructing his bank to close his account so as to avoid financial loss for the bad quality of rice supplied by the complainant, etc. However, the trial court noted that, except making these suggestions, the defence has no case that the accused had returned the allegedly bad quality rice to the complainant's firm or that he had taken any action in that regard. The trial court noted that the accused had not denied the signature on the cheques or any of the transactions between the parties and his only defence was regarding the alleged bad quality of the rice supplied. The trial court noted that the said plea taken by the defence is not credible and believable version, inasmuch as the defence has no case that they have taken steps to return the allegedly bad quality rice to the complainant or that they had taken any legitimate action with regard to the alleged bad quality rice supplied, etc. The trial court noted that the said plea taken by the defence is not credible and believable version, inasmuch as the defence has no case that they have taken steps to return the allegedly bad quality rice to the complainant or that they had taken any legitimate action with regard to the alleged bad quality rice supplied, etc. In this view of the matter, the trial court found that the defence version is not believable or acceptable, whereas it was found that the complainant has produced various documents in relation to the transactions including the credit invoices. More particularly, the trial court has taken note of Ext.P-9 agreement dated 5.1.2015 executed between the complainant and the accused, wherein the accused had admitted that he had fully received the payments from the customers, who were supplied the rice commodity and further that he had defaulted in payment towards the rice, etc. In the light of these aspects, the trial court has found that the complainant has established a credible version and that he has proved his case regarding the transaction and that the cheques in question were duly executed and issued by the accused in favour of the complainant firm for discharge of a legally recoverable debt or liability. 9. The appellate court also on an elaborate evaluation of the evidence came to the considered conclusion that the complainant has convincingly proved their case and that the defence version is not believable or probable version. Accordingly, both the courts below came to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled for the presumption under Secs.118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and that the complainant firm has clearly proved the transactions as well as the issuance of the cheques in question. The revision petitioner has not been able to establish before this Court that the aforesaid concurrent findings arrived at by both the courts below are in any may manner vitiated by gross perversity or unreasonableness. The revision petitioner has also not been able to establish before this Court that any relevant and crucial evidentiary aspects have been shut out by both the courts below. In these circumstances, this Court is constrained to hold that the concurrent findings made by both the courts below that accused is liable to conviction for the abovesaid offence is not liable for any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional powers. 10. In these circumstances, this Court is constrained to hold that the concurrent findings made by both the courts below that accused is liable to conviction for the abovesaid offence is not liable for any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional powers. 10. As regards the question of sentence, though the trial court had imposed substantive sentence of one month in each of the 3 cases, apart from the direction to pay the fine amount, the appellate court has modified the said substantive sentence and reduced the same to imprisonment till the rising of the court while maintaining the direction to pay fine. 11. The cheque amounts in these 3 cases covered by Ext.P-3, P-16 and P11 come to Rs.1,12,000/-, Rs.1,10,000/- and Rs.68,000/- respectively, thus totaling Rs.2,90,000/- whereas the fine amounts imposed in these 3 cases come to Rs.1,40,000/-, Rs.1,25,000/- and Rs.90,000/-, thus totaling to Rs.3,55,000/-. 12. The Supreme Court has held in many cases that in conviction involving offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the trial court could award interest on the cheque amount upto 9% p.a. from the date of the cheque amount upto date of realisation. Therefore, having regard to these aspects, it cannot be said that the fine amounts imposed by the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, are in any manner grossly disproportionate or excessive. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the fine amounts are also not liable for revisional interference. 13. Faced with this situation, Sri.T.G.Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that in case this Court is inclined to confirm the conviction and sentence imposed in this case, this Court may grant at least 10 months' time to the petitioner to pay the fine amounts. It is also submitted that the petitioner is now facing acute financial difficulties and that this Court may take a lenient view in the matter. Having regard to this submission, this Court is of the view that time by six months from 15.2.2017 could be granted to the petitioner to pay the fine amount and until then further coercive steps against the petitioner will stand deferred. It is so ordered. Registry to forward a copy of this order to the trial court. With these observations and directions, these Criminal Revision Petitions stand dismissed.