ORDER : The 1st petitioner herein is a proprietary concern and the 2nd petitioner is the proprietor of the said proprietary concern. The petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.293/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-V, Ernakulam, for offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, instituted on the basis of the complaint filed by the 1st respondent (complainant). The trial court as per the impugned judgment dated 1.11.2014 had convicted the petitioners and had sentenced them to pay fine of Rs.7,60,000/- to the complainant, in default of payment of which, the 2nd petitioner, who is the proprietor of the 1st petitioner concern, was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and the amount of fine, if realised, was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation under Sec.357(1) of the Cr.P.C. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners had preferred Crl.Appeal No.563/2014 before the appellate Sessions Court concerned (Court of Session's Judge, Ernakulam). The appellate court as per the impugned appellate judgment dated 26.10.2015 had upheld the conviction and had also confirmed the sentence and thereby dismissed the appeal. It is aggrieved by the said concurrent findings of both the courts below that the petitioners have preferred the instant revision petition by taking recourse to the remedies available under Sec.397 read with Sec.401 of the Cr.P.C. 2. Heard Sri. Lal K. Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners (accused), Sri. V. Abraham Markos, learned counsel appearing for R-1 (complainant) and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-2 State. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is that the 1st accused proprietary concern was a dealer of the 1st respondent complainant. The 1st respondent complainant is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of prawn feeds and that the accused used to purchase prawn feeds from the complainant company and towards the various dues owed, the accused had issued to the complainant, Ext.P-2 cheque dated 13.7.2005 for amount of Rs.7,50,000/-drawn in favour of the complainant, which when presented, resulted in dishonour and the complainant had issued statutory demand notice under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act calling upon the accused to make payment of the amount covered by the cheque within 15 days. The accused had issued Ext.P-12 reply notice contending that the cheque in question was forcibly taken by the complainant from the possession of the accused and that the accused had never issued the cheque in question for the abovesaid amount, etc. But there was no dispute regarding the transaction or the liability. 4. The accounts officer of the complainant company was examined as P.W-1 and the prosecution had marked Exts.P-1 to P-12 documents. The defence had not adduced any evidence. P.W-1 deposed that he was the accounts officer of the complainant company and that Ext.P-11 is the statement of accounts in relation to the transactions with the accused for the period from 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2006, which shows that the total amount owed by the accused to the complainant company was Rs.7,56,040.40 and that in discharge of the liability, the petitioners had executed and issued Ext.P-2 cheque dated 13.7.2005 for Rs.7.5 lakhs, which when presented was dishonoured, etc. 5. The main defence sought to be projected at the time of cross examination of P.W-1 was that at the time of dealership, they had given a demand draft of Rs.25,000/- as security deposit and that five blank signed cheques were also taken from him by the company as security and that one among such 5 blank signed cheques has been misused by the complainant by filling huge amount, etc. Further, that the accused have not been refunded Rs.25,000/- till date, etc. The trial court on meticulous evaluation of the materials on record found that the earlier defence taken up by the accused at the time of issuance of Ext.P-12 reply notice was to the effect that the blank signed cheque was forcibly taken from his possession in the year 2001 by the complainant company, which has been misused, whereas during the cross examination of P.W-1, the specific case was that 5 signed blank cheques along with a demand draft of Rs. 25,000/- were taken as security by the company at the time of commencement of the dealership in the year 2001, etc. The trial court found that there was serious contradiction even in the defence taken by the accused and still further, it was also found by the trial court that except making these suggestions, the defence has not been able to establish any clinching factual circumstances from the evidence tendered by the prosecution, so as to even remotely vindicate such suggestions. The trial court found that there was serious contradiction even in the defence taken by the accused and still further, it was also found by the trial court that except making these suggestions, the defence has not been able to establish any clinching factual circumstances from the evidence tendered by the prosecution, so as to even remotely vindicate such suggestions. Further, the accused had not adduced any independent evidence in order to establish such defence suggestions. Therefore, the trial court also found that P.W-1 has deposed that the cheque in question was signed by the accused in his presence etc. and that Ext.P-11 statement of accounts would show that total liability owed by the accused to the complainant company was Rs. 7,56,040.40, etc. In the light of all these aspects, the trial court as well as the appellate court found that the version projected by the defence was not probable or credible. Whereas it was found that the evidence tendered by the complainant company was believable and that they had proved, not only the transaction but also the factual aspects regarding the execution and issuance of the cheque in question. These factual findings, on the basis of the which conviction has been rendered by both the courts below, cannot be said to be vitiated by gross perversity or unreasonableness. The petitioners have not been able to establish that the impugned judgments suffer from any grave illegality or impropriety. So also, it is seen that no crucial and relevant material evidentiary aspects have been shut out by both the courts below. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have not been able to establish any cogent grounds to interfere with the considered concurrent findings rendered by both the courts below. 6. As regards the question of sentence, it is seen that the trial court had sentenced both the accused (1st accused proprietary concern and 2nd accused proprietor) to pay a fine of Rs.7,60,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the 2nd accused proprietor was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. The fine amount so realised, was directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant under Sec. 357 (1) of the Cr.P.C. The appellate court has also upheld the said sentence. Since the cheque amount is Rs.7.5 lakhs, the fine amount of Rs.7.6 lakhs cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionate. The fine amount so realised, was directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant under Sec. 357 (1) of the Cr.P.C. The appellate court has also upheld the said sentence. Since the cheque amount is Rs.7.5 lakhs, the fine amount of Rs.7.6 lakhs cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionate. Ext.P-2 cheque was issued as early as on 13.7.2005. Even till date, no amounts have been paid by the accused to the complainant. Though the Apex Court has held in many rulings that in Sec.138 complaint, the complainant could be given as compensation/fine, not only the amount covered by the cheque but also interest @ 9% from the date of cheque upto the date of realisation. Both the courts below have not chosen to opt that course of action. Therefore, it is only to be held that the courts below have been quite lenient in the matter of imposition of fine. For all these reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction as well as the sentence imposed by both the courts below. 7. Faced with this situation, Sri. Lal. K. Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners (accused) submits that in case this Court is so inclined to uphold the conviction and sentence, reasonable time of at least 6 months may be granted to the petitioners to pay the amount of Rs.7.6 lakhs. Sri. V. Abraham Markos, learned counsel appearing for R-1 complainant has no serious objection to that course of action. Accordingly, the following orders and directions are issued: (i) The impugned conviction imposed on the petitioners for the offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by both the courts below will stand confirmed. (ii) The petitioners are given 6 months time from 15.4.2017 to pay the fine amount of Rs. 7.6 lakhs. (iii) The revision petitioners will be at liberty to pay the amount directly the complainant. On payment of the amount, the complainant will issue receipts to the accused so that the accused can produce the same before the trial court to satisfy the said court about the payment of the amount. 7.6 lakhs. (iii) The revision petitioners will be at liberty to pay the amount directly the complainant. On payment of the amount, the complainant will issue receipts to the accused so that the accused can produce the same before the trial court to satisfy the said court about the payment of the amount. Any amount so paid by the accused directly to the complainant, the same will be treated as payment of fine and then disbursed to the complainant as compensation under Sec. 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. (iv) The 2nd petitioner shall appear before the trial court at 11 a.m. on 21.10.2017 to satisfy the trial court about the payment of the abovesaid fine amount of Rs.7.6 lakhs. (v) On default of payment of the said amount as directed above, the 2nd petitioner will have to undergo to simple imprisonment for six months as ordered by the both the courts below. (vi) Until 21.10.2017 all further coercive steps taken against the petitioners in pursuance of the execution of the impugned sentence including non bailable warrant, if any, will stand deferred. (vii) On default of the petitioners either to appear before the trial court on 21.10.2017 or in paying the abovesaid amount, the trial court will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioners, in accordance with law. With these observations and directions, the Revision Petition stands finally disposed of.