ORDER : 1. The revision on hand is directed against the judgment dated 14.12.2017 in Criminal Appeal No. 403 of 2014 of Court of Sessions, Palakkad (for short ‘the court’) which arose from the judgment dated 30.10.2014 in S.T. No. 2964 of 2012 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur. 2. S.T. No. 2964 of 2012, is a prosecution launched by the first respondent under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the NI Act’) against the revision petitioner. Trial was held in the prosecution by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur and vide judgment dated 30.10.2014 in S.T. No. 2964 of 2012, a finding of guilt of the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 NI Act was arrived at and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment till rising of the court and pay compensation of Rs. 3,60,000/- under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. In default of payment of compensation, the revision petitioner was also directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months. 3. The aggrieved revision petitioner has approached the court in Crl. Appeal No. 403 of 2014 against the said judgment. When the appeal was taken up for consideration by the court, it was submitted by the appellant/revision petitioner that, out of Rs. 3,60,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- was already paid by him to the first respondent. The parties to the appeal also requested the court to modify the sentence by confining the fine amount payable to the complainant as compensation to Rs. 2,50,000/- and grant 9 months' time from 14.12.2017, the date of the judgment, to make the payment. Thereupon, the court allowed the appeal in part, modified the fine payable to Rs. 2,50,000/- and directed payment of the same as compensation to the first respondent under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. within a period of nine months from 14.12.2017, the date of the judgment. The revision petitioner has approached this Court against the said modified judgment of the court in the revision on hand. As the sentence imposed is fine payable as compensation, the provision liable to be invoked by the court is Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. instead of Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. 4. It is contended by Sri. Baby Mathew, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the Court of Appeal has erred in passing the judgment dated 14.12.2017 in Crl. Appeal No. 403 of 2014. It is contended by Sri. Baby Mathew, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the Court of Appeal has erred in passing the judgment dated 14.12.2017 in Crl. Appeal No. 403 of 2014. According to him, the court has no inherent jurisdiction to pass such a modified judgment solely accepting the submission made by the counsel representing the parties to the appeal without dealing with the ground of appeal on merits. According to him, even if a submission is made by the counsel and time is sought for payment of the amount, the appellate court ought to have appreciated the evidence in the backdrop of the contentions raised in the appeal and passed a judgment only on merits. According to him, the court ought to have insisted for compounding of the offence instead of passing a judgment of the nature. With submissions of the nature, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner seeks for interference of the judgment of the appellate court. 5. There is merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel that despite the prayer of the appellant for a modification of the substantive sentence and grant of time for payment of the modified amount of fine, the Court of Appeal must have appreciated the evidence to see whether the judgment passed by the trial court is vitiated in any manner. Appeal being a valuable right of a party, who suffers a judgment, the Appellate Court must have heard the appeal on merits and appreciated the evidence on record to see the sustainability of the arguments advanced by the parties to the appeal. 6. A glance of the judgment under challenge would make it clear that the Appellate Court did not venture to go into the merits of the case to see the legality, impropriety and infirmity of the findings of the trial court. None of the grounds raised by the appellant in the appeal memorandum were meted out by the appellate court. Paragraph 4 of the judgment of the appellate court is apposite reference and extracted hereunder: “4. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties entered into a settlement and it is submitted that the applicant has paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the respondent towards the liability. Paragraph 4 of the judgment of the appellate court is apposite reference and extracted hereunder: “4. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties entered into a settlement and it is submitted that the applicant has paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the respondent towards the liability. They together requested for a reasonable modification of the sentence by confining the amount payable by the appellant to the respondent to a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- and sought for nine months time to clear off the entire amount. The respondent/ complainant has very candidly conceded for such a verdict in this appeal. In view of the above submission, I am not inclined to enter into a discussion in depth and eventually this appeal is allowed in part.” 7. It is true that the parties to the appeal conceded for a modification of sentence. But, the appellate court has got a duty to appreciate the evidence available on record to see the legality, propriety or correctness of the judgment under challenge. It is true that a submission was made jointly by the counsel representing the parties to the appeal to modify the substantive sentence, confining the amount payable as fine to Rs. 2,50,000/-. But, the court ought not to have acted on the joint submission made by the parties, to its convenience ignorant of the factum that it was called upon to exercise appellate jurisdiction. The court must be vigilant of the jurisdiction which was sought to be exercised by the parties approaching it in appeal and must be cautious about its authority while exercising that jurisdiction. Joint submission made by the parties in the case on hand needs to be dealt with by the court only when findings on merits on the grounds projected in the appeal memorandum are arrived at by the court. The appellate court ought not to have acted leisurely and conveniently by passing a judgment of the nature under challenge in the revision petition on hand. 8. The complaint was filed and cognizance was taken on it by the court in the year 2007. The judgment in S.T. No. 2964 of 2012 was passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur on 30.10.2014. The appeal was preferred against the judgment by the accused on 25.11.2014 and the disputed judgment was passed by the Court on 14.12.2017. The complaint was filed and cognizance was taken on it by the court in the year 2007. The judgment in S.T. No. 2964 of 2012 was passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur on 30.10.2014. The appeal was preferred against the judgment by the accused on 25.11.2014 and the disputed judgment was passed by the Court on 14.12.2017. Twelve years' period had already been elapsed after launching of the prosecution by the first respondent. A judgment was obtained by him in his favour from the trial court. In the appeal also, the 1st respondent had conceded the proposal of the appellant for modification of the sentence and payment of the same within nine months. But, despite grant of time sought for payment, it is worthy to notice that the appellant/revision petitioner did not pay a single pai. The revision on hand is filed with delay of almost one year. The attempt of the revision petitioner now is to obtain an order of remand in the revision after getting the substantive sentence modified, confining the amount payable by the appellant to the respondent to a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- and obtaining nine months' period for making the payment. After availing the time granted by the appellate court, the revision petitioner is now before the court seeking for a remand. 9. The revision petitioner is now attempting to avail further time knowingly that he won't be able to succeed in the revision. If there was any scope for him to succeed in the appeal on merits, he would not have pleaded for a modification of the sentence and grant of time for payment before the appellate court. 10. However, the Court has been oblivious of its duty and failed to dispose of the appeal on merits. Therefore, in view of the legal flaw, a remand is the possible remedy in revision. But, in view of the discussion of the factual situation as above and the inordinate time already consumed by the prosecution, this Court finds it relevant to have a look at the evidence on record to see whether the trial court has erred in appreciating the same or has overlooked any, to reach the conclusion of guilt against the accused and if any of the grounds as above is found to exist, to remit the case to the appellate court for consideration afresh. 11. 11. Coming to the evidence in the prosecution, it is pertinent to note that complainant has adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. Complainant gave evidence as PW-1 and got documents marked as Exts.P1 to P5(a). The transaction pleaded in the complaint which caused issuance of cheque is borrowal of a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- on 20.07.2007 by the accused from the complainant, who is a friend of him. The demand for repayment was meted out by issuance of two cheques, the disputed ones in the case on hand (Ext.P1 and P2). On presentation of cheques before the Bank, those got bounced for the reason "funds insufficient" in the account of the accused. PW-1 in his proof affidavit has sworn to all material aspects of his case. But, during cross examination, PW-1 has stated that the hand writings in Ext.P1 and P2 are that of the accused. It is also brought out in evidence during cross examination of PW-1 that an agreement was executed among the complainant and the accused for sale of a vehicle that belongs to the accused and in that transaction, the complainant had paid Rs. 6,00,000/- to the accused towards sale consideration. The execution of the cheque is categorically denied by the accused and he had taken a contention that it is improbable for the complainant to advance Rs. 3,50,000/- to the accused, when the purpose for which Rs. 6,00,000/- paid by him to the accused was not fructified. 12. But PW-1 has stated that at the time when payment of Rs. 3,50,000/- was made, the time for performance of the first contract was not terminated. Therefore, there is no merit in contending that the alleged advancement of Rs. 3,50,000/- to the accused is improbable to happen. The complainant as PW-1 has successfully discharged the burden to establish the execution of cheque. To discharge it's onus to rebut the presumption under Section 139 N.I. Act, the accused had examined himself as DW-1 and got marked Exts.D1 to D4 in evidence. But he failed to discharge his onus to rebut the presumption. Therefore, the prosecution case that cheques have been issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt is well established. The compliance of formalities as mandated by the N.I. Act for a prosecution under Section 142 N.I. Act to be successful was also established. But he failed to discharge his onus to rebut the presumption. Therefore, the prosecution case that cheques have been issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt is well established. The compliance of formalities as mandated by the N.I. Act for a prosecution under Section 142 N.I. Act to be successful was also established. Therefore, the trial court is well justified in arriving at the conclusion of guilt of the accused under Section 138 N.I. Act and passing the order of conviction and sentence against him. Even if, the appellate court had ventured to dispose of the appeal on merits, after appreciating the evidence on record, then also it would have only culminated in confirmation of sentence, the evidence being of the nature as discussed above. For the forgoing reasons, this Court did not find any reason to interfere with the judgment under challenge. 13. In the result, Crl. R.P. stands dismissed.