K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

At the trial that took place on a complaint filed by the mother in-law of his son under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called the Act) the revision petitioner was convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He was also directed to pay the second respondent/complainant Rs. 2,55,000/- as compensation and in default of payment of the amount to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. In the appeal filed by him the order of conviction was upheld, but the sentence was modified; he was ordered to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court. The direction to pay the compensation and to undergo imprisonment in case the amount was not paid was not modified. The order of conviction and the sentence are assailed on the ground that both courts failed to analyse the evidence, and to apply the law laid down by the Supreme Court as to how the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Act may be rebutted. It is submitted that both courts failed to examine whether the evidence available in the case was sufficient to prove the contention