This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 31st August 2000 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam in Crl. Appeal No. 485/98. By a common judgment / order rendered in Crl. Appeal 485/98 and Crl.R.P. 43/99, the learned Sessions Judge had upheld the judgment dated 18-11-1998 passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, North Parur in C.C.559/96. By the said judgment the learned Magistrate had found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

2. The complainant alleged that the revision petitioner/accused had issued Ext.P2 cheque to her for an amount of Rs. Three Lakhs. The accused is the brother in law of the complainant. When the matrimonial life ran into rough weather, because of differences of opinion between the spouses, an agreement (Ext.P1) was executed between the concerned parties. At the time of settlement of the disputes Ext.P2 cheque for Rs.Three lakhs was allegedly issued by the accused/revision petitioner to the complainant. The said cheque when presented for encashment was dishonoured by the bank on the ground that sufficient amount is not available in the account. Ext.P5 notice of demand was issued. It was duly received and acknowledged. It evoked Ext.P8 reply. But no payment was made as demanded. The accused took the stand that the complainant is not competent to present the cheque before the marriage was dissolved as agreed by the contestants. It was also contended that the cheque was issued under threat, duress and coercion.

3. During the course of trial the complainant examined herself as PW1 and the bank Manager as PW2. Exts.P1 to P10 were marked. During the course we of trial the accused repeated his stand, which he took up in Ext. P8 reply notice-that the cheque was not issued for the due discharge of any legally enforceable debt/liability. According to him it was issued under duress. He had no liability to the complainant, it was further alleged. No defence evidence was adduced.

4. The learned Magistrate initially, and the learned Sessions Judge subsequently, came to the conclusion that all ingredients of the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act have been established beyond doubt. Accordingly the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to pass the impugned judgment.

5. The revision petitioner/accused assails the impugned judgment on the following grounds;

1. The courts below erred in coming to the conclusion that the cheque was issued for the due discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability.

2. The sentence imposed is at any rate excessive.

6. The signature in the cheque is admitted. Ext.P1 agreement is also admitted. As per Ext.P1 agreement Ext.P2 cheque had been issued on 13-12-1996 to discharge a liability. Documentary evidence clearly shows that Ext.P2 cheque was issued by the accused for the due discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. There is no merit in the contention, even if true, that the accused had no personal liability to the complainant. The only other contention is that the chque was issued under threat, coercion and duress. No evidence is there to prove this contention. The conduct of the appellant after the admitted signing and issue of the cheque does not at all support the theory that it was issued under threat, duress and coercion. I find absolutely no reason to invoke the revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding culpability of the accused. The challenge fails.

6. Now coming to the question of sentence, I find that the learned Magistrate had imposed a sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one year under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. No direction for payment of compensation was issued. The revision petitioner contends that the sentence imposed is excessive. The complainant had made an attemp