Smt. Lakshmi vs Smt. Jayalakshmi

This petition is filed challenging the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court dated 8.2.2013 passed in C.C.No.1223/2007 and also the judgment and order passed by the first appellate Court in Crl.A.No.38/2013 dated 31.5.2014.

Brief facts leading to filing of the private complaint by the respondent herein is that, accused being friend of the complainant borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/- from the complainant on 2.1.2007 for her legal necessity as a short term hand loan for a period of three months and issued a cheque dated 5.4.2007 of MDCC Bank, Besagarahalli Branch, ensuring repayment of Rs.60,000/-. Complainant presented the cheque through her banker and the same was dishonoured with the banker''s endorsement as funds insufficient. Same was intimated to the accused, but the accused gave a evasive reply. As such, the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused on 12.4.2007 through RPAD and COP. Same was duly served on the accused, for which, she gave untenable reply. Hence, complainant filed the complaint before the trial Court wherein the complainant was examined as P.W.1 and she has produced the documents Ex.P1 to P7. On the side of the accused, accused herself was examined as D.W.1 and she has produced the documents at Exs.D1 to D9. The trial Court, after appreciating both oral and documentary evidence, held the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 20 days. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court, the petitioner herein preferred the appeal before the first appellate Court in Crl.A.No.38/2013. Even the first appellate Court after re-appreciating the materials, dismissed the appeal, but modified the sentence and the fine amount was reduced to Rs.65,000/- instead of Rs.1,00,000/- ordered by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the judgments and orders of the Courts below, the petitioner is before this Court.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused. Respondent and her counsel remained absent.

Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has submitted that petitioner has not at all entered into the said loan transaction with the complainant nor she has issued the cheque to the complainant. Accused was working in the house of one K.S.Siddegowda as maid servant and he had promised accused that he will get loan for the education of her daughter and in the year 2004 got opened an account in the name of the accused in M.D.C.C. Bank, Besaralu village and had obtained signatures of the accused on blank cheques and on the basis of the said cheques, the complainant has filed the complaint. These aspects were not properly appreciated by the Courts below and the Courts below have wrongly read the evidence and come to a wrong conclusion in convicting the petitioner. Accordingly, she has submitted to allow the revision petition and to set aside the judgments and orders of the Courts below.

I have perused the grounds urged in the revision petition and the judgments and orders passed by the Courts below.

On a perusal of the findings recorded by the trial Court it is seen that it has extensively discussed the oral and documentary evidence adduced before it. Though it is the contention of the accused before the trial Court that one K.S.Siddegowda had obtained her signatures on the blank cheques and she never entered into the said transaction with the complainant, but the accused failed to examine said K.S.Siddegowda before the Court in order to prove her defence to the satisfaction of the Court. When her signature on the cheque has been admitted, the presumption is in favour of the complainant and accused has to rebut the said presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Looking to the materials and the judgment of the trial Court it is observed that accused has failed to establish her defence with cogent and satisfactory material. The trial Court, after assessing the entire materials placed on record, has come to the conclusion that the complainant has established her case and the loan transaction between the complainant and the accused. Further, it is also established that when the cheque was presented for encashment, same was dishonoured.

The first appellate Court also while reappreciating the entire evidence has held that complainant has established her case with cogent material and there is no illegality committed by the trial Court in convicting the accused. Though, it has dismissed the appeal, but modified the sentence and fine amount and ordered to pay fine amount of Rs.65,000/- instead of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed by the trial Court.

Looking to the entire materials on record, I am of the opinion that no illegality has been committed by the Courts below in coming to such conclusion. There are no legal and valid grounds for this Court to interfere into the judgments and orders of the Courts below. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.