Asha Anand @ Smt. Asha vs M. Gautham Chand

B.V. Pinto, J.—This Criminal Revision Petition is filed challenging the Judgment dated 8.3.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and P.O., FTC-III Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 25089/2011 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the Judgment dated 23.4.2011 passed by the XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C. No. 43913/2009, convicting the petitioner for the offence u/s 138 of N.I. Act and sentencing her to pay a total fine of Rs. 5,50,000/- in default, to undergo S.I. for two years with a direction that out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 5,40,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the Complainant u/s 357 of Cr.P.C. Heard Sri R. Srinivas, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Sri Tomy Sebastian, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent/Complainant.

Sri R. Srinivas, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he does not propose to argue on merits of the case and submits that it would suffice if time is granted to pay the balance amount to the Complainant as per the Judgments of the Courts below. Nevertheless, I have gone through the materials on record. It is seen that the petitioner/accused has issued a cheque bearing No. 693772 dated 10.1.2009 for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- in favour of Complainant drawn on Canara Bank, Kalyan Nagar Branch, Bangalore to discharge her liability. When the cheque was presented to the Bank on 3.2.2009 for payment, the same was dishonoured for the reason ''Funds Insufficient'' and the same was intimated to the Complainant on 4.2.2009. Thereafter, the Complainant issued a legal notice on 19.2.2009 both by way of RPAD., and under Certificate of Posting, calling upon the petitioner to pay the cheque amount within the statutory period. The same was not paid inspite of receipt of legal notice on 20.2.2009 and thereafter a complaint was filed before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. The XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore took cognizance of the offence and issued process to tire accused/petitioner. The Complainant got himself examined as PW. 1 and got marked Exs. P1 to P8. Thereafter, statement u/s 313 was recorded. The petitioner/accused examined herself as DW. 1 and did not mark any document in her favour. The trial Court by Judgment dated 23.4.2011 held that the Complainant has proved the case against the accused for an offence u/s 138 of N.I. Act beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced her as aforesaid. The accused/petitioner thereafter approached the learned Sessions Judge, Bangalore and by Judgment dated 8.3.2012, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the order of conviction passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction and confirmed by the Appellate Court, the petitioner is before this Court.

On carefully going through the materials on record, more particularly, the evidence of the Complainant as well as the documents as per Exs. P1 to P8, it is seen that the accused has executed On Demand Promissory Note and Consideration Receipt as per Exs. P1 and P2; she has issued a cheque as per Ex. P3. The signature on the cheque is not disputed by the accused. Though the legal notice was issued as per Ex. P5 and the same was received as per Ex. P8, the accused has not replied to the legal notice issued u/s 138 of N.I. Act.

The trial Court after appreciation of the evidence on record has held her guilty. The appellate Court has independently assessed the evidence on record and has come to the conclusion that the order of conviction and sentence is in accordance with law. Hence, the appeal was also dismissed.

In view of the above concurrent finding of the Courts below, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below. Hence, the order of conviction passed by the trial Court as confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court, is hereby confirmed.

Sri R. Srinivas, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- before the trial Court. The petitioner is granted four months'' time from today to pay the balance amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-, failing which, the trial Court is directed to execute the default sentence as directed by the trial Court. The amount in deposit is ordered to be paid to the complaint forthwith. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of.