Smt. K.G. Shanthamma vs Sri Channappa

B.V. Pinto, J.—This Criminal Revision Petition is filed challenging the Judgment dated 25.01.2011 passed by the Fast Track Court-VIII, Bangalore City in Crl. A. No. 356/2009 dismissing the appeal filed against the Judgment dated 15.04.2009 passed by the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City in CC No. 32180/2005 convicting the petitioner/accused for the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (herein after referred to as ''the N.I. Act'' for short and sentencing to pay fine of Rs. 4,12,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months with a direction that a sum of Rs. 4,10,000/- out of the fine recovered shall be paid as compensation to the respondent/complainant. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court for the purpose of convenience and clarity.

Learned Counsel for the accused submits that, he does not challenge the finding of the trial Court insofar as the order of conviction is concerned and prays for leniency with regard to the sentence imposed, since the accused is a lady and she is doing house hold work and she is depending on her husband for paying the said amount.

Sri R. George Lazrus, learned Counsel for the complainant on the other hand submits that, a cheque for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- was issued by the accused and therefore, fine for the said amount may be imposed on the accused and directed to be paid over to the complainant as compensation.

Learned Counsel for the accused however, submits that the orders as found equitable may be passed in the interest of justice.

Though, the learned Counsel for the accused submits that, he does not challenge the order of conviction passed by the trial Court, in order to satisfy myself, I have gone through the materials on record. The complainant-Channappa has been examined as P.W. 1 and has got marked Exs. P1 to 13 including Ex. P2-a cheque for Rs. 4,00,000/-. The accused examined herself as D.W. 1 and she has also got examined one Bhavani Prasad, the Manager of Central Bank of India as D.W. 2 and produced Ex. D1-a letter issued by Central Bank of India, Kamalanagar Branch, Bangalore. The learned Magistrate after taking into consideration the aforesaid materials on record has held that the complainant has proved the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, since he has proved the ingredients for the offence u/s 138 of the N.I. Act and has passed an order of sentence as aforestated. The Appellate Court in an appeal has also briefly re-appreciated the evidence on record and has found that order passed by the trial Court is proper and based on evidence on record and there is no illegality or perversity in the said order nor the said order is against the settled principles of law. Therefore, the Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the accused by confirming the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Before this Court, Sri. Lakshmi Narayana Rao, learned Counsel for the accused submitted on behalf of the accused who was also present before this Court on 20.08.2013 that, she is unable to pay any amount more than Rs. 2,60,000/- and that she has already deposited an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- before the trial Court and the balance will be deposited within three months from today. The complainant and his Counsel who are present before this Court today have finally agreed to receive the said sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- in full and final settlement of the claim over the cheque issued by the accused. Hence, the following order is passed.

ORDER

i) The order of conviction passed against the accused for offence u/s 138 of N.I. Act is hereby confirmed.

ii) The order of sentence passed against the accused is modified and the accused shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- as fine for the offence u/s 138 of the N.I. Act.

iii) In default of payment of said fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months.

iv) The sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- in deposit shall be paid to the complainant and two months time is granted to pay or deposit the balance amount before the trial Court failing which the trial Court is directed to execute the default sentence.

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of in above terms.