JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., set aside the conviction imposed in the judgment, dated 20.03.2012 made in S.T.C.No.1313 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Erode confirmed in judgment dated 25.09.2012 made in C.A.No.109 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, by allowing this Criminal Revision Petition.)

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/accused, aggrieved by the conviction for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by the judgment, dated 20.03.2012 of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Erode in S.T.C.No.1313 of 2010, thereby imposing a sentence of six months Simple Imprisonment and Rs.2,000/- fine and the judgment, dated 25.09.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.109 of 2012, confirming the conviction and sentence.

2. The respondent herein, A.Nallasivam, filed a complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that on 28.09.2010, the accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for urgent family expenses and in discharge of the aforesaid liability, the accused has issued a post dated cheque, bearing No.597330 drawn on Indian Overseas bank, Surampatty branch, dated 28.10.2010 for the said sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The complainant presented the said cheque for collection through his bankers namely, Indian Overseas Bank, Erode, but, however, the same was returned with the indorsement “funds insufficient” along with the memo of dishonour, dated 01.11.2010. The complainant issued a legal notice on 19.11.2010, which was served on the complainant on 20.11.2010. However, within the 15 days time, the accused did not pay the amount and hence, the complaint was filed on 09.12.2010. The learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement on the same day and took cognizance of the offence and issue summons to the accused. After appearance and supplying of copies, the accused was questioned and she denied the offence and stood trial.

3. On behalf of the complainant, the complainant, Nallasivam was examined as P.W.1. The cheque dated 28.10.2010 issued by the accused was marked as Ex.P1. The return memo issued for dishonour of cheque, dated 01.11.2010 was marked as Ex.P2. The legal notice issued by the complainant was marked as Ex.P3 and the postal receipt for issuance thereof was marked as Ex.P4. The acknowledgement card was marked as Ex.P5 and the prosecution rested its case.

4. Upon being questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., about the incriminating circumstances and the evidence on record, the accused denied the same as false. Thereafter, on behalf of the defence, the accused examined herself as D.W.1 and the reply notice issued by her on 05.01.2011 to the legal notice issued by the complainant is marked as Ex.D1. Thereafter, the Trial Court proceeded to hear the learned Counsel on either side and by its judgment dated 20.03.2012 found that the defence of the accused in this case is that the husband of the accused had obtained loan from M/s. Selvam Finance and an unfilled cheque was handed over to the said Selvam Finance by her husband as a security for a borrowal of Rs.25,000/-. The said sum had already been repaid and now, the cheque has been misused. The Trial Court further found that even though to prove her defence, the accused had cited her husband as a defence witness, she did not examine her husband. Similarly, in her chief-examination, she had also stated that her husband has given this cheque without her knowledge to M/s. Kannan Finance. Therefore, considering the contradictions in the defence and since, except for her ipse dixit, the accused did not let in any credible evidence in proof of defence, the Trial Court found that the accused is guilty of the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and imposed a sentence of six months Simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, one month Simple Imprisonment.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment, the petit