ORDER : The petitioner is an accused for the offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in Summary Trial Case, S.T.C.No.3651/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Mananthavady. The trial court as per the impugned judgment rendered on 30.10.2014 had convicted the petitioner and had sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months and to pay fine of Rs.1.5 lakhs for the above said offence and in default thereof the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. The fine amount if realised has to be given to the complainant as compensation under Sec.357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred Crl.A.No.161/2014 before the Sessions Court, Kalpetta (Wayanad). The appellate court concerned as per the impugned judgment rendered on 30.8.2016 had upheld the conviction and had modified the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for 2 months by reducing the same to simple imprisonment till rising of the court. The fine amount was enhanced from Rs.1.5 lakhs to Rs.1.75 lakhs and in default thereof the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. The fine amount if realised has been directed to be paid to the complainant under Sec.357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. 2. Heard Sri.John Jude Issac, learned counsel for the revision petitioner-accused and Sri.Jestin Mathew, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-2 State. In the nature of the order proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to R-1 will stand dispensed with. 3. The gist of the prosecution allegation is that towards discharge of a liability owed by the accused to the company, the revision petitioner-accused had issued Ext.P-1 cheque dated 2.5.2010 for Rs.1.5 lakhs in favour of the complainant. The complainant had presented the cheque which resulted in dishonour on the ground of "funds insufficient". The complainant had thereafter sent requisite statutory notice as envisaged under Sec.138(b) of the N.I. Act, which the accused had evaded the said notice and the postal authorities had returned the same with the endorsement 'unclaimed'. It is thereafter the present complaint has been instituted by the petitioner under Sec.397 r/w 401 of the Cr.P.C. The complainant examined PWs 1 to 3 on his side and marked Exts.P-1 to P-4 documents and the defence has not adduced any evidence. 4. It is thereafter the present complaint has been instituted by the petitioner under Sec.397 r/w 401 of the Cr.P.C. The complainant examined PWs 1 to 3 on his side and marked Exts.P-1 to P-4 documents and the defence has not adduced any evidence. 4. The complainant had given evidence broadly in tune with the contents of his complaint that the accused on 2.3.2010 had borrowed Rs.1.5 lakhs from the complainant promising to repay the same within 2 months. When the complainant had demanded for the return of the amount, the accused had issued Ext.P-1 cheque dated 2.5.2010 for Rs.1.5 lakhs drawn on Canara Bank, Panamaram Branch, which resulted in dishonour due to insufficiency of funds, etc. PWs-2 & 3 have deposed that they had seen the accused delivering the cheque to the complainant. Based on this, the trial court came to the considered conclusion that the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3 coupled with Exts.P-1 to P-4 documents would amply prove the complainant's case that the statutory presumption under Secs.118 and 139 of the N.I.Act could be validly pressed into service. The accused had taken up the defence that he had not borrowed money from the complainant and he had never issued the cheque. It was suggested by the defence that during cross- examination of PW-1 that the complainant managed to obtain the cheque of the accused in some clandestine manner and instituted the complaint. The said suggestion made by the defence was firmly denied by PW-1. The case set up by the accused under Sec.313 is that the complainant had taken the cheque from his room. The trial court found that there was no acceptable evidence on record to even remotely probabilise the above suggestion made while cross-examination of PW-1. The trial court also found that the admission of the signature in the cheque and that the cheque is issued from the account of the accused give a long way to prove the execution of the cheque. The trial court on an evaluation of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesse PW-1 complainant as well as PWs 2 & 3 as well as documentary evidence proved by prosecution would amply prove the execution of the cheque and that statutory presumption reached under Sec.118 and 139 of the N.I. Act has not in any manner been impeached by the accused. The trial court found that the suggestion made by the defence is based purely in the realm of suggestions and there was no material factual evidence adduced before the court below to even minimally probabilise the version of the defence. Accordingly, the trial court came to the considered conclusion that the complainant could prove the transaction as well as execution and issuance of the cheque in question. Both the courts below came to the concurrent findings that the accused is liable to be convicted. No serious objections have been raised by the revision petitioner to establish that requisite formalities for institution of a complaint under Sec.138 have not been complied with in the instant case. The revision petitioner-accused has not adduced any convincing evidence so as to show that the above said concurrent findings rendered by both the courts below are in any manner vitiated by gross perversity or unreasonableness. The petitioner has no case that crucial and relevant evidentiary aspects have been shut out by both the courts below. In the light of these aspects, this Court is of the view that the revision petition is not liable to be interfered with at the hands of this Court in the revisional jurisdiction. The appellate court modified the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment of 2 months by reducing the same to imprisonment till rising of the court. While modifying the substantive sentence the appellate court has enhanced the fine amount from Rs.1.5 lakhs to Rs.1.75 lakhs. The cheque amount in question is Rs.1.5 lakhs and the date of issuance of the cheque is 2.5.2010. The appellate court judgment was rendered on 30.8.2016. The Apex Court has held in quite many rulings that ordinarily interest could also be granted by the trial court while granting interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of cheque up to realization. Therefore, the modified fine imposed by the appellate court that the petitioner should pay fine of Rs.1.75 lakhs cannot be said to be grossly excessive. For all these reasons, this Court is of the view that the impugned sentence imposed in this case as modified by the appellate court cannot be termed as disproportionate or excessive. So the impugned sentence does not warrant any interference. For all these reasons, this Court is of the view that the impugned sentence imposed in this case as modified by the appellate court cannot be termed as disproportionate or excessive. So the impugned sentence does not warrant any interference. Faced with the situation, Sri.John Jude Issac, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, submits that in case this Court is inclined to upheld the impugned judgments of the courts below, then sufficient time by 6 months may be granted to the petitioner to pay the fine amount of Rs.1.75 lakhs. It is pointed out by the petitioner that the petitioner is in acute financial difficulties and he would require at least 6 months time to pay the said fine amount of Rs.1.75 lakhs. Accordingly, the following orders and directions are issued: (i) The impugned conviction imposed on the petitioner for the offence under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act will stand confirmed. (ii) The impugned modified sentence imposed on the petitioner by the appellate court directing the petitioner to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay fine of Rs.1.75 lakhs and in default thereof to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months and the fine amount so realised shall be paid to the complainant under Sec.357(1) (b) of the Cr.P.C are all confirmed. (iii) The petitioner is given 6 months' time from 1.3.2017 to pay the fine amount of Rs.1.75 lakhs. (iv) The petitioner will personally appear before the trial court at 11:00 a.m. on 16.9.2017 to receive the sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court and to satisfy the trial court about payment of compensation of Rs.1.75 lakhs. (v) Until 16.9.2017 all further coercive steps that may be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the execution of the sentence will stand deferred. Needless to say, on default of the petitioner either to appear before the court below on 16.9.2017 or to make payment of fine, then the trial court will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. With these observations and directions, the Crl.R.P. stands finally disposed of.