JUDGMENT :

SANJAY PRASAD, J.

1. The present Criminal Revision No. 1595 of 2018 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 10.09.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 09 of 2018 by the learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga whereby learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga has dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 09 of 2018 and affirmed the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.12.2017 passed by Sri. Nirupam Kumar, learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga in connection with Complaint Case No. 198 of 2017 corresponding to T. R. No. 473 of 2017 by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the N. I. Act and has been sentenced to undergo S. I. for a period of One (1) year and to pay a sum of Rs. 90,000/- as compensation to the complainant- O. P. No. 2 under Section 357 (3) of the CrPC.

2. The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the petitioner has issued a cheque of Rs. 69,000/- of Bank of India Kisko Branch in favour of the complainant to discharge her liability arising out of purchasing of a Truck. It has been stated that cheque in question was issued on 22.03.2017 vide cheque no. 000019 and the cheque was presented on 15.05.2017 and it was dishonoured due to insufficient fund and bank has issued a memo bearing seal and signature. Thereafter a legal notice was sent by the complainant- opposite party no. 2 to the petitioner on 18.05.2017 demanding Rs. 69,000/- from the petitioner and on failure of the petitioner to pay the amount in question, the present complainant was filed on 13.06.2017.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgments and order passed by the learned Court below are not sustainable in law. It is submitted that there are contradiction in the evidence of the complainant, which has been overlooked by the learned Court below. It is submitted that the petitioner is a poor and illiterate lady and she has issued two cheques for discharge her liability of Rs. 1,60,000/-. However, the complainant was supposed to fill up the said two cheques of Rs. 80,000/- and Rs. 80,000/- respectively for payment, but the complainant- opposite party no. 2 cunningly got filled up the amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- on the 1^st cheque and which was encashed from the account of the petitioner and thereafter 2^nd cheque was presented on 15.05.2017, which was dishonoured due to insufficient fund. It is submitted that the petitioner had taken this plea in her statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C., which has not been considered by the learned Court below. It is submitted that the learned Court below has not considered the evidence of defence witness i.e. DW-1, Md. Mustafa Ansari as he has stated that the petitioner is an illiterate lady and she has issued two cheques to the complainant-opposite parties party no. 2 for encashment of Rs. 1,60,000/- and after encashment of 1^st cheque of Rs. 1,60,000/-, when the petitioner went to the complainant- opposite party no. 2 to get returned her second cheque, then the complainant-opposite party no. 2 had asked her to return Rs. 29,000/- as interest and when the petitioner could not pay the interest, the complainant-opposite party no. 2 has filed a complaint case against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of M. S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Versus State of Kerala and Another reported in (2006) 6 SCC 39 and in the case of State of U.P. Versus Babu Ram reported in (2000) 4 SCC 515 and in the case of Vijay Versus Laxman and Another reported in (2013) 3 SCC 86 and has submitted that even the defence witness has to be protected at par with the prosecution witness. It is submitted that cheque was filled with blue ink whereas it was misused in the blue ink and it was also admitted by the complainant in his evidence tha