ORDER : 1. These criminal revision petitions are connected arising out of the common judgment. 2. The 1st respondent in both revision petitions filed two complaints against the petitioner under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the NI Act') before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, North Paravur (for short 'the trial court') as S.T. Nos. 156 and 165 of 2012 alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act. 3. The case of the complainant is as follows:- The complainant and the accused were classmates and were working at UAE. The accused borrowed 2,93,225/- UAE Dirhams from the 1 st respondent, which is equivalent to Rs.37,67,941/- and towards the discharge of the said liability, Exts.P1 & P12 cheques were issued, which, on presentation, were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Even though a statutory notice under Section 138(b) of NI Act was issued and received by the petitioner, there was no compliance. Hence, the prosecution was launched. Both cases were tried jointly by the trial court. On the side of the complainant, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.P1 to P19 were marked. On the side of the defence, DW1 to DW3 were examined and Exts.D1 and D2 were marked. Exts.X1 series to X3 were marked as court exhibits. 4. After trial, the trial court found the accused guilty under Section 138 of the NI Act in both cases and he was convicted for the said offence. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months in S.T.No.165 of 2012. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- as compensation to the complainant, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months in S.T. No. 156 of 2012. The accused challenged the conviction and sentence of the trial court before the Additional District & Sessions Court, North Paravur (for short, 'the appellate court') in Crl. Appeal Nos. 135 & 136 of 2019. The appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeals. These revision petitions have been filed challenging the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court. 5. I have heard Sri. K.A. Rasheed, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Appeal Nos. 135 & 136 of 2019. The appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeals. These revision petitions have been filed challenging the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court. 5. I have heard Sri. K.A. Rasheed, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. K.K. Dheerendrakrishnan, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent and Sri. E.C. Bineesh and Sri. Sangeetha Raj, the learned Public Prosecutors. 6. To prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself gave evidence as PW1. He deposed in tune with the averments in the complaint. A witness was examined as PW2 to prove the transaction. Even though, PW1 and PW2 were cross examined in length, nothing tangible could be extracted to discredit their testimony. The accused has admitted the signature in both cheques. His only case is that he issued the cheques in blank as a security for another transaction between the parties. The complainant through PW1 and PW2 has succeeded in proving the transaction, execution and issuance of the cheques. The accused failed to adduce any rebuttal evidence to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of conviction rendered by the the trial court as well as the appellate court. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the transaction is of a civil nature, the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court is on the higher side. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner/accused may be granted 12 months' time to pay the compensation. I am also of the view that the substantive sentence of three months is excessive. Hence, the substantive sentence of three months in both cases is modified and reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court, retaining the compensation and the default sentence. 8. The petitioner is granted eight months' time to appear before the trial court to receive the imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay the compensation amount, after deducting the compensation amount already deposited, failing which the legal consequences shall follow. 9. These criminal revision petitions are disposed of as above.