GOWRAMMA Vs. C. GEETHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the judgment of conviction dtd. 4/4/2016 passed by the XX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) in C.C.No.8358/2013 for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and consequent sentence to pay a fine of Rs.2,10,000.00 and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The petitioner has also called in question the judgment dtd. 28/11/2018 passed by the LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH - 69) (henceforth referred to as 'Appellate Court' for short) in Crl.A.No.521/2016 by which, the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court was upheld.

(2.) The private complaint filed by the respondent discloses that she and the petitioner were friends for several years. The petitioner had allegedly raised a hand loan of Rs.1,00,000.00 from the respondent and in discharge of the said amount, she had passed on a cheque bearing No.157139 dtd. 19/1/2013 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000.00. This cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds on 22/2/2013. The respondent caused a notice of demand on 30/1/2013, which was served on the petitioner on 4/2/2013. The petitioner replied to the notice claiming that she had raised a hand loan of Rs.1,00,000.00 and that she had given the cheque to be retained as security. She claimed that she had repaid the sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 along with interest, but the cheque was not returned. The respondent therefore, lodged a complaint against the petitioner alleging an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The sworn statement of the respondent was recorded and the private complaint was registered as C.C.No.8358/2014. The process issued in the case was served on the petitioner and she pleaded not guilty and prayed that she may be tried. The respondent was examined as PW.1 and she marked Exs.P1 to P7. The statement of the petitioner was recorded under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner denied the incriminating evidence against her and offered to lead her evidence in defense. Consequently, she was examined as DW.1 and she marked Exs.D1 and D2.

(3.) Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the petitioner had replied to the notice of demand claiming that she had issued the cheque in question as security for the loan of Rs.1,00,000.00 raised from the respondent and that her defense was that she had already repaid a sum of Rs.1,00,000.00, but the respondent failed to return the cheque and later misused it to launch a criminal prosecution. The Trial Court therefore, held that the petitioner had admitted that the cheque in question was drawn from her account and that the signature found thereon belonged to her. The Trial Court noticed that the petitioner had raised a totally different case in her defense evidence and therefore, held that the petitioner was attempting to avoid the liability. It therefore, held that the cheque in question was issued by the petitioner towards discharge of a lawful debt and therefore, convicted the petitioner under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced her to pay a fine of Rs.2,10,000.00 failing which, she was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Crl.A.No.521/2016 before the Appellate Court, which was also dismissed.