Budihal R.B., J.

This revision petition is filed by the petitioner-accused being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 26.6.2014 passed by the XVIII ACMM Court at Bengaluru in C.C. No.22896/2011 so also the judgment and order of confirmation dated 22.1.2015 passed by the Fast Track Sessions Judge, FTC-05, Bengaluru City in Cri.A. No.748/2014.

2. By the judgment and order of conviction, the trial Court convicted the revision-petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced her to pay fine of Rs. 5,30,000/-. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence imposed, when the accused preferred an appeal, the first appellate Court also, after considering the materials placed on record, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court. Hence, this revision petition by the accused.

3. Brief facts of the case of the complainant in brief are that, the complainant had agreed to take the house of husband of petitioner-accused on lease basis for Rs. 5,50,000/-. The respondent-complainant has paid Rs. 4,60,000/- to the husband of the accused-petitioner. It was agreed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.90,000/- at the time of handing over the possession of the property. He has executed the lease agreement to that effect. The revision-petitioner-accused is an attesting witness to the said agreement. The husband of the revision-petitioner-accused has not handed over the possession of property to the respondent-complainant as per the lease agreement. The respondent-complainant has requested the husband of the revision-petitioner-accused to re-pay the lease amount of Rs. 4,60,000/-. At that time the revision-petitioner-accused on behalf of her husband, has given cheques to the respondent-complainant towards discharge of the said amount.

The respondent-complainant presented these cheques to the bank for encashment and the same were dishonoured with endorsements that, the revision-petitioner-accused was not having sufficient funds in her account. Thereafter the respondent-complainant has issued legal notice to the revision-petitioner-accused to pay the cheques amounts by RPAD and by speed post. Notice sent by RPAD is returned with endorsement 'door is locked' and the notice sent by speed post is served on the accused. Even after receipt of the legal notice, the revision-petitioner-accused has not paid the cheques amounts to the respondent-complainant. Therefore, the complaint was filed against the revision-petitioner-accused alleging that, she has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. After considering the materials placed on record the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and the accused challenged the same before the first appellate Court, the first appellate Court also dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court.

5. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the respondent-complainant.

6. Revision-petitioner and learned Counsel for the revision-petitioner remained absent and there is no representation.

7. Perused the grounds urged in the revision petition, and the judgment and order passed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court. The complainant was examined as P.W.1 before the trial Court and has produced 18 documents. Looking to the judgment of the trial Court, it goes to show at para No.3, that even after giving sufficient opportunity, the accused and her counsel remained absent and hence the cross examination of the complainant was taken as 'nil'. Even the accused was examined and the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused has not led any evidence by way of defence. The trial Court has observed in its reasoning about the transaction of lease agreement entered into between the complainant and the accused and her husband