R. Basant, J.

This Revision Petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under S.138 of the N.I. Act.

2. The cheque is for an amount of Rs.2,30,000/-. The signature in the cheque is admitted. That it was handed over by the accused to the complainant is also not disputed. While the complainant alleged that the cheque was handed over to him towards payment of amounts for articles supplied, the accused contended that it was handed over when a transaction in pepper was anticipated. In short, the accused contended that the cheque was issued not for the discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability, but it was handed over as security for an intended transaction. The complainant examined himself as PW.1 and proved Exts.P1 to P5. Accused examined DWs.1 and 2. DW2 is the accused himself and DW1, a friend of his - to speak about the alleged transaction.

3. Courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that the evidence of PW.1 can safely be accepted and that the evidence of DWs 1 and 2, which the courts found is inter se contradictory, is not worthy of acceptance. Courts drew assurance for this conclusion from the circumstance that the notice of demand, though duly received and acknowledged, was not responded to. It is in these circumstances that the courts below proceeded to pass the impugned judgments. While the Trial Court convicted the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, the appellate Court reduced the substantive sentence of imprisonment to one of simple imprisonment for three months. Both Courts directed payment of only an amount of Rs.1O,OOO/- as compensation. No satisfactory reasons are shown as to why only an amount of Rs.1O,OOO/- is granted as compensation when the cheque amount is Rs.2,30,000/-. There is no plea even, of partial discharge. There is no contention that any decree has been passed by a Civil Court in respect of the alleged transaction.

4. Called upon to explain, the nature of the challenge raised against the impugned verdict of guilty and conviction, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the contention that there was no legally enforceable debt/liability. Less said about this contention, the better. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 or to accept the oral evidence of DWs.1 and 2 in preference to that tendered by PW1. The evidence of PW.1 is further supported by the eloquent improbable conduct of the petitioner not responding to the notice of demand, which was duly acknowledged under Ext.P4. It is, of course, true that towards the later stages of the trial, the accused wanted to take up a contention that Ext.P4 acknowledgment is not signed by him. There is no contention even that the address shown in the notice is not correct. The contention that the signature in Ext.P4 is not his, was not even raised when the complainant was in the witness stand. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the challenge raised against the verdict of guilty and conviction. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if some time were given, an attempt shall be made to settle the matter and report composition to this Court. At any rate he contends that the sentence imposed is excessive.

5. Though the idea of admitting a Revision Petition in the year 2004, to enable the parties to chase a settlement, which they have not been able to reach from the year 1996, when this prosecution Was initially launched, does not at all appeal to me, I am satisfied that some time can be granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner before final orders are passed in the Revision Petition, to report composition.

6. Call this petition again on 14.7.2004 for final disposal or for considering application for composition, if any filed.

7. After 14.7.2004, this matter has come up for hearing thrice. It is reported to the Court that there has been no settlement of the dispute between parties.