T. SULAIKHA Vs. T. SATHYAPALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the courts below under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the N.I. 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 is available before the 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, the concurrent finding by the courts below that the revision petitioner committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, does not warrant any interference by this court.