ORDER

Heard Sri Hareesh Bhandary T., learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent is served and unrepresented.

2. The petitioner-accused has preferred this criminal revision petition under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 27-12-2012 passed by the III Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Udupi in Criminal Case No.4165/2009 and confirmed by the judgment dated 03.06.2015 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Udupi in Crl.A.No.5/2013 wherein both the Courts passed concurrent findings in respect of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'N.I. Act' for short).

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The petitioner is the 'accused' and the respondent is the 'complainant' before the trial Court.

4. The brief facts of the complainant's case are as under:-

The complainant had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant is a Co-operative Society which lends money to its members. The husband of the accused had availed a loan of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand only) from the complainant-Society on 16.10.2001 on the guarantee or co-obligation of the accused, who was the member of the complainant-Society and one Abdul K. Beary and the accused, as guarantor for the loan of her husband issued a cheque dated 21.02.2009 for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) in favour of the complainant drawn on Mangalore Catholic Co-operative Bank Ltd., Shirva Branch, Shirva, and on presentation of the said cheque, it was returned with an endorsement 'insufficient fund'. Hence, the complainant got issued a legal notice calling upon the accused to pay the amount due under the cheque, but the accused did not pay the cheque amount. Hence, the complaint. After registration of the private complaint, the trial Court took cognizance, recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and issued process.

5. The complainant to prove its case, examined its General Manager as P.W.1 and relied upon 12 documents as per Ex-P1 to P12 and ultimately, the trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and to pay a fine of Rs.2,76,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand only) with default imprisonment.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.5/2013 and in turn, the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the accused has preferred this criminal revision petition.

8. Perused the material available on record and the grounds urged in the revision petition.

9a. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that, the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by both the Courts is not in accordance with law, both the Courts have committed a serious error; the complainant has failed to comply the mandatory requirements of Section 138 of NI Act; the complainant has not produced any iota of evidence to show that the petitioner had issued a cheque in favour of the complainant for discharge of liability of her husband; the trial Court has not appreciated the admission of PW1 in proper perspective; the complainant has created and concocted the documents to show that the husband of the accused had availed such huge loan from the society. 9b. It is contended that, accused never stood as guarantor to the loan borrowed by her husband, but, the trial Court and First Appellate Court failed to consider this aspect.

9c. It is contended that, the trial Court