The

revision

petitioner

-

accused

in

CC No.21050/2017 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to

as 'the trial Court' for brevity), is impugning the judgment

of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.04.2019,

convicting him for the offence punishable under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 ('NI Act' for

short) and sentencing to pay fine of Rs.5,50,000/- in

default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year,

which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.1037/2019 on the file of

the learned LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions

Judge, Bengaluru City, (hereinafter referred to as 'the First

Appellate Court' for brevity) vide its judgment dated

23.01.2023.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial

Court.

- 3 -

3.

Brief

facts

of

the

case

are

that,

the

complainant filed Private complaint in PCR.No.7511/2017

before the trial court against the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and requesting to

take legal action against the accused. The learned

Magistrate

took

cognizance

of

the

offence

and

CC.No.21050/2017

was

registered

for

the

offence

punishable under Section 138 NI Act.

4.

Accused has appeared before the trial Court and

pleaded not guilty for the accusation made against him.

The complainant examined himself as PW1 and got

marked Exs.P.1 to 9 in support of his contention. The

accused denied all the incriminating materials available on

record and examined herself as DW1 but not chosen to

mark any document in support of her defence. The trial

Court after taking into consideration all these materials on

record, came to the conclusion that the complainant is

successful in proving the guilt of the offence punishable

under Section 138 of NI Act beyond reasonable doubt and

- 4 -

accordingly, convicted and sentenced the accused as

stated above.

5.

Being aggrieved by the same, the accused has

preferred Crl.A.No.1037/2019. The first Appellate Court on

re-appreciation of the materials on record, confirmed the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by

the trial Court while dismissing the appeal. Being

aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court.

6.

Heard Sri Rudrappa.P., learned counsel for the

revision petitioner/accused and Sri G.Jairaj, learned

counsel for the respondents. Perused the materials

including the trial Court records.

7.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the complainant was running chit business and the

petitioner was the member of a chit group. As security,

she had issued the cheque-Ex.P1. By misusing the same,

the present complaint came to be filed. The complainant

was not having financial capacity to pay Rs.5,50,000/- as

contended. The accused has stepped into the witness box

- 5 -

and examined herself as DW1. The trial Court and

appellate Court ignored all these facts and proceeded to

convict the accused, without any basis. Therefore, prayed

to allow the revision petition by setting aside the judgment

of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial

Court and the first appellate Court, in the interest of

justice.

8.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-

complainant

opposing

the

same

submits

that

the

complainant has proved lending of Rs.5,50,000/- as loan

and issuance of cheque as per Ex.P.1 by the accused

towards repayment of the legally recoverable debt. But the

cheque was dishonored due to insufficient fund in the

account. Legal notice was issued, which was served on

accused. Inspite of legal notice being served, the accused

did not issue any reply to the notice nor she repaid the

cheque amount.

9.

Learned counsel submits that Exs.P8 and 9 are

the lease deeds produced by the complainant to show his

- 6 -

financial capacity. He has regular source of income apart

from leasing his buildings. The accused admitted issuance

of cheque with her signature, bu