A. MANOJ Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that the revision petitioner is not contesting the revision petition on merits and that the revision petitioner needs only time to pay the compensation. Suffice it to say that having gone through the relevant inputs, I am satisfied that the courts below correctly appreciated the evidence and concurrently found that the revision petitioner committed the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act. 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. The sentence awarded by the courts below also does not warrant any interference by this Court.