ORDER :

1. This revision petition is at the instance of the accused in S.T. No. 683 of 2004 on the file of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Marad cases), Kozhikode, assailing the judgment in Crl. Appeal No. 608 of 2005 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc-1), Kozhikode, which upheld her conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. S.T. No. 683 of 2004 was based on a complaint filed by one Mr. Manoj Kumar, who is the 1st respondent herein, alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as ‘the NI Act’) committed by the revision petitioner herein. According to him, the revision petitioner was running a chitty business in the name and style “Kerala Chitty Fund” having its administration office at Trivandrum, and branches at various places in Kerala. The complainant/1st respondent subscribed two chitties having sala of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- respectively, conducted by the revision petitioner. He properly remitted monthly instalments at the Tirur branch of the revision petitioner. Ultimately, towards discharge of the debt due to the complainant/1st respondent, the revision petitioner issued two cheques; one cheque for Rs. 76,000/- dated 28.04.2004 and another cheque dated 05.06.2004 for Rs. 1,02,000/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, Tirur branch. On presentation of those cheques before bank by the complainant/1st respondent, the same were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the bank account of the revision petitioner. Though registered lawyer notice was sent to the revision petitioner, in the address of the administrative office at Trivandrum as well as in the address of the branch office at Tirur, informing dishonour of the cheques and demanding the cheque amounts, she neither repaid the amount nor sent any reply, in spite of receipt of notice on 21.07.2004. Hence he filed the complaint.

3. On appearance of the revision petitioner before the trial court, particulars of the offence was read over and explained, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereupon, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.P1 to P14 were marked from the side of the complainant/ 1st respondent.

4. On closure of evidence of the complainant/1st respondent, the revision petitioner was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and she denied all the incriminating circumstances brought on record. DW-1 was examined and Exts. D1 and D2 series documents were marked as defence evidence. Ext.C1 was marked as court exhibit.

5. On analyzing the facts and evidence, and on hearing the rival contentions from either side, the trial court found the revision petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the NI Act and she was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- to the complainant/ 1st respondent. In default of payment of compensation, she was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

6. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner preferred Crl. Appeal No. 608 of 2005, and the appellate court, on re-appreciation of the facts and evidence, upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and dismissed the appeal, against which, she has come up with this revison.

7. Now this Court is called upon to verify the legality, propriety and correctness of the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court as well as the appellate court.

8. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned counsel for the 1st respondent.

9. The issuance of Exts.P1 and P2 cheques by the revision petitioner in favour of the 1st respondent is not much disputed. Dishonour of those cheques due to the reason 'funds insufficient' also is not in dispute. Now the main ground, on which the revision petitioner is assailing the concurrent findings of the courts below is that the notice as envisaged under Section 138(b) of the NI Act w