ORDER : The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the courts below under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for short “the NI Act”). 2. Heard. 3. The courts below correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and concurrently found that the revision petitioner executed Ext. P1 cheque as contemplated under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, rejecting the contentions of the revision petitioner. No material has been brought to the notice of this Court to indicate that the appreciation of evidence or the concurrent finding of conviction by the courts below was perverse or incorrect. In the said circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the verdict of conviction passed by the courts below under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque, I am of the view that the sentence awarded by the courts below can be modified and reduced to a fine of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) with a default clause for simple imprisonment for twenty days to meet the ends of justice. It is ordered accordingly. If the fine is realized, the entire amount shall be given to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1) (b) Cr.P.C. In the result, this Revision Petition stands allowed in part as above. The revision petitioner is granted three months to pay the fine as requested by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. During the course of argument, this Court felt it necessary to go through the proceedings of the court below. Then the proceedings sheet of the court below was found to be illegible and not readable even with great difficulty. As per sub rule 2 of Rule 73 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala, when records are sent to a court of appeal or revision, a typed or neatly written copy of the proceedings paper shall be placed with the records. However, unfortunately, no such typed or neatly written copy of the proceedings paper was sent along with the records transmitted to this Court. Therefore, this Court directed the court below to transmit the readable copy of the proceedings of the court below. However, unfortunately, no such typed or neatly written copy of the proceedings paper was sent along with the records transmitted to this Court. Therefore, this Court directed the court below to transmit the readable copy of the proceedings of the court below. Accordingly, readable copy of the diary extract in the above case was transmitted to this Court, which is extracted hereunder; “DAIRY EXTRACT IN STC 1944/2008 OF JFCM I KANNUR 22/12/2007 Complainant present, returned for want of age and fathers name of accused. 28/12/2007 {Defect cured and resubmitted today. P Kamamlaksan, Advocate for Complaint} Complainant present, ….......(not legible) 10/03/2008 10/03/2008 Complainant represent, …........(not legible) 2/6/2008 02/06/2008 Complainant represent, …........(not legible) 1/7/2008 01/07/2008 Compl represented, taken on file as STC 1944/2008 u/s 138 of NI Act. Issue summons by regd. 17/11/08 17/11/2008 No sitting and adjourned to 26/02/2009. 26/02/2009 Complainant represent, …........(not legible) 22/6/2008 22/06/2009 Complainant represent, …........(not legible) 22/9/2008 22/09/2009 Complainant represent, …........(not legible) 22/9/2008 29/09/2009 Complainant not present,…........(not legible). Accused present plea recorded, copy furnished, pleaded not guilty, for evidence-14/12/2009 14/12/2009 Complainant present,…........(not legible), accused present, for ….............. (…......not legible 9/01/2010 15/01/2010 Reported case not settled, so for evidence 19/06/10 19/06/2010 Complainant present, Accused present, evidence time prayed, NFT-30/7/10 30/07/2010 Complainant present, Accused absent, Chief Affidavit filed, Ext P1 to P5 marked, no cross for accused represented, for 313 of accused 13/08/10. 13/08/2010 Complainant present, Accused present, questioning u/s 313 c r pc . Sec 311 application filed, (….not legible) 3/9/18 03/09/2010 Complainant present, accused represented, ready for cross examination, for cross accused absent, prayed time, NFT 17/9/10 17/09/2010 Complainant present, cross examined as PW1, no further evidence, (…...not legible), for 313 Q accused 1/10/10. 01/10/2010 Complainant absent, accused present, for hearing 22/10/2010 22/10/2010 Complainant present, Accused absent, for defence evidence to 26/10/2010 26/10/2010 Complainant represented, accused (…..not legible). For defence evidence if any 26/11/10 26/11/2010 Complainant present, accused absent, petition filed, no defence evidence adduced, for hearing 29/11/10. 29/11/2010 Complainant absent represented, accused (…..not legible), heard, for judgment 30/11/10. 30/11/2010 Complainant absent, no representation, accused absent, accused found guilty sentenced for undergo SI for 1 month and to pay Rs.39,500 to compl u/s 357(3) crpc. IDSI for 1 month (….not legible) NBW to accused and notice to sureties. In the above said readable copy of the extract, the words “not legible” are written in fourteen places. 30/11/2010 Complainant absent, no representation, accused absent, accused found guilty sentenced for undergo SI for 1 month and to pay Rs.39,500 to compl u/s 357(3) crpc. IDSI for 1 month (….not legible) NBW to accused and notice to sureties. In the above said readable copy of the extract, the words “not legible” are written in fourteen places. This would show that even the person who prepared the above extract was not able to read the proceedings of the court below for various dates as the writings were not legible in many places. The above situation could have been avoided if the Judicial Officer/Officers, who wrote the proceedings, had written the proceedings in a legible manner. If the proceedings of the court below are not recorded in a legible and readable manner by the Presiding Officers, different versions of the proceedings can be found in the readable copy of the proceedings forwarded to the Superior Courts. Therefore, it is essential to have a clear and legible record of the proceedings of the courts. If the handwriting of any Judicial Officer is not easily readable, he will have to make arrangement for the preparation of clear legible copies of the proceedings immediately after they are recorded. Thereafter, the presiding officer concerned will carefully scrutinise the copies and verify the correctness everyday. If it is not done everyday, even the officer, who recorded the proceedings, may not be able to read the same later. If the proceedings of the courts are not legible and readable, the Superior Courts will find it very difficult to understand the proceedings. In the said circumstances, all Judicial Officers in the State are directed to make arrangement for the preparation of clear and legible copies of the proceedings of each day, if the handwriting of the Presiding Officer is not readable. A copy of this order shall be served to the officers who had written the proceedings in this case, wherever they are, to alert them of their responsibility.