R. Narayana Pisharadi ORDER
R. Narayana Pisharadi, J.
1. The revision petitioner is the accused in the case C.C. No. 753/2016 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-V, Kozhikode.
2. The trial court found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and convicted her thereunder and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and also directed her to pay an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- as compensation to the complainant and in default of payment of compensation, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
3. The petitioner filed Crl.A. No. 150/2018 before the Court of Session, Kozhikode challenging the conviction entered against and the sentence imposed on her by the trial court. The appellate court confirmed the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act but modified the sentence of imprisonment to imprisonment till the rising of the court and imposed a fine of Rs. 3,50,000/- on the petitioner and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The petitioner challenges the concurrent verdicts of guilty and conviction passed against her by the courts below and the sentence imposed on her by the appellate court.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the first respondent.
5. The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant and the accused were known to each other. The husband of the accused had received a total amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- from the complainant in instalments on the promise that he would sell the Scorpio car in his possession to the complainant, after repairing the same. However, the husband of the accused could not sell the car to the complainant as promised by him. The husband of the accused returned an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant. The accused undertook the liability of the husband for the balance amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- and she issued a cheque dated 25.11.2015 for that amount to the complainant in discharge of the liability. An agreement dated 05.11.2015 had also been executed in relation to the transaction. The complainant presented the cheque in the bank. It was returned unpaid for the reason that there was no sufficient amount in the account of the accused. The complainant sent Ext. P3 lawyer notice dated 15.03.2016 in the address of the accused but it was returned as 'unclaimed'. The accused did not pay the amount.
6. During the trial of the case, PW 1 to PW 3 were examined and Exts. P1 to P6 documents were marked on the side of the complainant. DW 1 was examined on the side of the accused.
7. When the complainant was examined as PW 1, he gave evidence in tune with the case set up by him in the complaint. He gave evidence that, towards the amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- due from her husband, the accused signed, executed and issued Ext. P1 cheque to him. PW 2, a friend of the complainant, was also examined to prove the execution and issuance of Ext. P1 cheque by the accused to the complainant. He has given evidence corroborating the testimony of PW 1.
8. The plea of the accused is that she had not issued Ext. P1 cheque to the complainant but the complainant had misused the cheque which he had got from her husband.
9. Th........