ORDER

Heard counsel for petitioner, respondent No.2 and Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.

2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mavelikkara in Crl.Appeal No.213 of 2003 confirming conviction and sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). According to respondent No.2, petitioner borrowed Rs.2,50,000/- from her and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 13.3.2000. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Exts.P2, P3, P7 and P8. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Respondent No.2 gave evidence as PW1 and spoke to her case. According to the petitioner, her deceased husband had forged her signature in the cheque and misused it. Learned magistrate observed that petitioner was making out a case from the death of her husband. It is contended that due execution of the cheque is not proved.

3. Though it is contended by petitioner that her signature was forged by her deceased husband, there is no reason or circumstance to think so, not to say about any evidence in that line. It