JUDGMENT :

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 28th November, 2018 passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track 2nd Court, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in criminal revisional Application No. 308/2017 present application under section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred. By the impugned judgment learned Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of conviction dated 21.09.2017 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, in C 8925/2006.

2. In the aforesaid proceeding being C 8925 of 2006 the petitioner was asked to stand trial to answer the allegations leveled under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (N.I. Act , 1881).

3. The instant criminal proceeding was instituted against the petitioner on the basis of the petition of complaint filed by the opposite party herein alleging commission of offence by the petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. In the said petition of complaint it has been alleged that with the intention of defrauding the opposite party herein, petitioner used to visit his office while he was serving as AGM of the international banking division of United Bank of India. It is further alleged that petitioner made false representations of her resources to run an export business and the opposite party, being a person with extremely generous and benevolent outlook had helped the petitioner in respect of her proprietorship concerned, namely, M/s. FOLK. By taking advantage of such benevolent personality as well as the official capacity of the opposite party herein, the petitioner barrowed a sum of Rs.18,60,895/-, out of which after long persuasion the petitioner repaid a sum of Rs.10,69,000/-to the opposite party. Inspite of repeated requests, the petitioner did not pay the balance amount and accordingly the opposite party herein asked her to repay the balance amount by different letters. The petitioner issued an account-payee cheque in favour of opposite party herein in respect of outstanding liabilities being no.951441 dated 21.06.2006 for a sum or Rs.8,00000/-drawn on Syndicate Bank, Baguihati Branch. When the said cheque was presented by the opposite party to its banker, it was returned with the remark “insufficient fund”. Opposite party sent legal notice on 17.07.2006 thorough his advocate demanding payment of the dishonoured cheque amount and petitioner inspite of receipt of the said notice on 21.07.2006, has failed to pay the cheque amount. In response to the said demand notice, the petitioner herein sent a reply on 01.08.2006.

4. The petitioner contended that after receiving of summon in the aforesaid complaint in Case No.8925/2006, the petitioner appeared and pleaded not guilty during trial. The opposite party herein in order to prove his case, has only examined himself as the sole witness. The petitioner herein was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The petitioner also deposed as the sole defence witness denying all allegations and also tendered number of documents in evidence which are marked as Exhibit.

5. The learned Trial Court after going through the evidence-on-record and also after examining the evidence adduced by the parties, was pleased to pass the impugned judgment convicting the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881, and thereby sentencing her to suffer imprisonment and also to pay compensation.

6. Challenging the aforesaid judgment and order dated 21.09.2017, the petitioner preferred revisional application being Criminal Revision No.308 of 2017 before Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court, City Sessions Court, Calcutta. Learned Appellate Court after hearing both the parties was pleased to dismiss the aforesaid revisional application by a judgment and order dated 28.11.2018 and affirmed the judgment of the trial court dated 21.09.2017, passed in C 8925 of 2006. The petitioners being dissatisfied with the judgment preferred this applicat