Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The complainant/non-applicant Rasmeshvar Prasad Chauhan filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter called as 'N.I. Act'), stating inter alia that on 30/06/2009 and 15/12/2009 towards the existing liability, the applicant/accused - Smt. Meel Bai issued two cheques amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/- to the complainant, which was dishonoured on account of insufficient fund in her account. After serving legal notice, when the amount was not repaid, the complaint was filed for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, in which, present applicant - Smt. Meel Bai abjured her guilt by pleading that she has falsely been implicated in the case and entered into defence.

2. In order to prove the offence, the complainant/non-applicant examined himself as PW-1 and brought five documents on record, whereas, the defence examined two witnesses and brought no document on record.

3. After considering contentions of the parties and evidence available on record, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, C.G. by its judgment dated 24/03/2012, convicted the accused/applicant - Smt. Meel Bai for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and also awarded compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. in default of payment of compensation amount to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

4. Feeling dissatisfied with the conviction for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the accused - Smt. Meel Bai preferred Criminal Appeal No. 100/2012 before the Court of Session. The Second Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur, C.G., by its judgment dated 23/08/2012 maintained the conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act finding no merit but reduced the jail sentence from simple imprisonment for one year to imprisonment till rising of the Court and enhanced the compensation amount from Rs. 2,50,000/- to Rs. 2,75,000/- and further directed to pay the compensation amount within a period of one month, in default of payment of compensation amount to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

5. Invoking revisional jurisdiction by this Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. the applicant preferred instant criminal revision.

6. Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the accused-Smt. Meel Bai would submit that conviction recorded and sentence awarded by both the Courts below are absolutely illegal in view of fact that there is no pre-existing liability on her part towards complainant-Rasmeshvar Prasad Chauhan and as such, the conviction recorded is bad & unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside. He would further submit that sentence awarded is shockingly on higher side as the jail sentence is not mandatory in view of the language employed in Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

7. Ms. C.K. Navrang, learned counsel appearing for the complainant - Rasmeshvar Prasad Chauhan would submit that conviction recorded by the trial Magistrate as affirmed by the Appellate Court is well merited and does not call for any interference and the sentence awarded is also just, fair and reasonable.

8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the judgment impugned including records of the case carefully.

9. Upon hearing both the counsel, following two questions arise for determination.

(i) Whether the conviction of Smt. Meel Bai for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is just and proper?

(ii) Whether the punishment imposed upon the accused-Smt. Meel Bai by the Appellate Court is just and proper?

Answer to question No. 1.

10. I shall first take up the plea of Mr. Gupta that there was no pre-existing liability against the complainant to make payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- by cheque. It is admitted position on record that the applicant had purchased the land bearing Khasra No. 624/132, area 470 sq. ft. situated at Devi