ORDER

The courts below convicted and sentenced the revision petitioner concurrently under Section 420 IPC.

2. Heard.

3. The prosecution allegation is that the first accused borrowed an amount of Rs. 85,000/- from PW1 and towards the discharge of the said liability, the first accused issued Ext. P1 cheque. It is alleged that Ext. P1 cheque was drawn from the account of the second accused. It is further alleged that the first accused had put the signature on the said cheque.

4. PW1 presented the cheque for encashment.

However, the same was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the second accused and also due to the difference in signature of the drawer.

5. The courts below correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and concurrently found that the revision petitioner committed the offence under Section 420 IPC, repelling the contentions of the revision petitioner. No material has been brought to the notice of this Court to indicate that the appreciation of evidence or the concurrent finding of conviction by the courts below was perverse or incorrect. In the said circumstances, the concurrent finding by the courts below that the revision petitioner committe