Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. The revision petitioner stands convicted for an offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Trial Court found all the necessary ingredients to enter a conviction on trial, including that Ext. P1 cheque dated 11-12-1995 for an amount of Rs.90,000/- bounced on presentation. Having found that the offence has been proved, the Trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

2. As discernible from the judgment under appeal, the only contention urged and pressed at the time of hearing of the appeal was that the issuance of the statutory notice for such prosecution and its proper service has not been proved. That has been repelled by the appellate court. The sentence was modified to be one of imprisonment for a period of one month and direction to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation under S.357(3) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four months.

3. Having considered this revision, the two issues that arise for consideration are as to whether the courts below have acted in accordance with law in convicting the accused in spite of having noticed the discrepancy, as alleged by the accu