RENUKA, W/O. VENKATASWAMY Vs. T.S. CHANDRASEKHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present case, in C.C.No.515/2008, XII Addl. CMM, Bangalore City, convicted the accused, for an offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act') and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.25,10,000/-, in default, to undergo S.I. for six months. Out of the fine amount, Rs.25,00,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant. Crl.A.No.2/2010 filed by the accused in the City Civil & Sessions Court, Bangalore having been dismissed by a Judgment dated 07.04.2010, this criminal revision petition has been filed, assailing the said Judgments. For convenience, the parties would be referred to with reference to their rank in the Trial Court.

(2.) MATERIAL facts of the case which have led to the filing of this petition can be stated thus:- According to the complainant, the accused approached him for loan of Rs.15,00,000/- and the same having been lent, towards payment, accused issued cheque bearing No.245089 dated 22.10.2007 for Rs.15,00,000/- drawn on Corporation Bank, Kengari Satellite Town Branch, Bangalore. When the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same was returned by the bank, with an endorsement "insufficient funds", on 23.10.2007. Thereafter, on 29.10.2007, the complainant got a legal notice issued to the accused to pay the cheque amount. Since the amount was not paid, the complainant filed a complaint under S.138 of the Act. Accused denied the charge. During trial, the complainant got himself examined as PW-1 and marked Exs.P1 to P9. Accused got herself examined as DW-1 and examined three witnesses as DWs 2 to 4 and marked Exs.D1 to D9. Learned Trial Judge found the accused guilty and passed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. An appeal filed was found to be devoid of merit and was dismissed.

(3.) SRI B.N. Shetty, learned advocate for the complainant, supported the impugned Judgments and submitted that the accused having issued the cheque to the complainant, under her signature, by making a false representation that the account was maintained by her, has duped the complainant. He submitted that the accused having played fraud on the complainant, the finding of guilt recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court, does not warrant interference.