Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused.

2. The counsel for the respondent/complainant has not come forward to address arguments despite of an opportunity given to him. Hence, the appeal is taken up for disposal.

3. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction passed by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.725/2010 reversing the acquittal judgment passed by the Court of the XXII Additional CMM and XXIV Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore in C.C.No.24880/2007 for offences under Section 138 of the NI Act.

4. The factual matrix of the appeal are as under:

The appellant herein was the accused before the Trial Court in C.C.No.24880/2007 for the offences under Section 138 of the NI Act. This case arose from PCR No.13483/2007 alleging that accused and the husband of the accused, namely Shri V.T. Achar had obtained a loan from the complainant for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- by executing an on demand promissory note and consideration receipt dated 6.10.2005. It is further alleged in the complaint that the accused has issued a cheque dated 29.06.2007 drawn on ICICI Bank, Chamarajpet Branch, Bangalore, for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards discharge of their legally enforceable debt. On presentation of the cheque by the complainant through his banker, such cheque was returned on the endorsement of insufficient funds. On the basis of the memo and an endorsement issued by the Bank, the complainant had caused legal notice to the accused dated 19.07.2007 and the same was sent through ordinary post, RPAD as well as through courier on 21.07.2007. However, the legal notice sent through RPAD was returned unserved as ‘not claimed’ and the notice sent through courier was returned unserved for the reason ‘parties shifted’. The accused neither complied with the demand made under the statutory notice nor paid the cheque amount. Therefore, the complainant filed a private complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. On issue of process, the accused appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The complainant got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P11. Subsequent to the closure of the evidence of the complainant, incriminating statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Subsequently, accused got examined herself as DW-1 and closed the case. Subsequently, on hearing the arguments advanced in that case, the Trial Court acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act by order dated 29.09.2010 in C.C.No.24880/2007. Against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court in that case, the complainant then preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.725/2010. The First Appellate Court having gone through the entire evidence on record, allowed the appeal by reversing the acquittal judgment rendered by the Trial Court in C.C.No.24880/2007 and thereby convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced her to pay a fine of Rs.1,60,000/- and in default to pay fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Out of the fine amount, Rs.1,50,000/- was to be paid to the complainant as compensation as contemplated under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and the remaining amount was to be defrayed to the state. It is this judgment which is under challenge in this appeal by urging various grounds.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant during the course of his argument has taken through the evidence of the complainant and so also the documents as produced by the complainant as at Exhibits P-1 to P-11. Exhibit P- 1 is the cheque, Exhibit P-2 is the on demand promissory note, Exhibit P-4 is the Bank endorsement, Exhibit P-5 is the account statement, Exhibit P-6 is the copy of the legal notice, Exhibit P-8 is the UCP for having issued notice, Exhibit P-9 is the receipt and Exhibits P-10 and P-11 are the returned postal covers.

His co