contemplated in Sec.138 of the N.I. Act and the defence set up by the accused was repelled by the courts below. These findings of facts cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable and therefore, this Court is of the view that this Court will not be justified to interfere in a matter like this by taking recourse to the revisional powers conferred on this Court. No circumstances has been brought to indicate that the said concurrent findings of facts are in any manner illegal or perverse, etc. in these circumstances, it is not proper for this Court to interfere with the said findings of facts. As regards the sentence, it is seen that the appellate court has now imposed substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for 2 months. Having regard to the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in Damodar S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal , reported in AIR 2010 SC 1907 and Kaushalya Devi v. Roopkishore, reported in AIR 2011 SC 2566, this Court is inclined to reduce the substantive sentence to simple imprisonment till the rising of the court. The fine amount imposed on the petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate or excessive. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in case this Court is inclined to affirm the conviction, then reasonable time may be granted to the petitioner to make the payment of the fine amount. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioner is given
