LOKESH K.N. Vs. RATHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the appellant is absent. Sri. Ram Prasad.K.J. seeks time to submit his arguments. No justifiable reasons to adjourn the case. The matter is of the year 2010.

(2.) Perused the records. It is noticed that the proceedings are arising out of the dishonour of cheque issued by the respondent. The said cheque when presented for encashment came to be dishonoured for insufficient funds. Appellant/complainant caused notice to the respondent calling upon her to repay the cheque amount. The original cheque, dishonoured memo, copy of the legal notice and the postal acknowledgement for having served the notice were produced before the Court as Exs.P1 to P9 respectively.

(3.) The respondent took up a plea before the trial Court that the cheque in question was lost and therefore, she sent a letter to the Canara Bank intimating the loss of cheque. She also produced a copy of the reply notice sent to the complainant. However, respondent having failed to produce any material to show that the said letter - Ex.D1 was sent to the Bank prior to the dishonour of the cheque and in the absence of any material to show that the reply notice was served on the counsel for the complainant, the learned Magistrate was of the view that the respondent failed to rebut the presumption attached to the cheque and consequently, convicted the respondent under section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced her to pay a fine of Rs. 60,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six months. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs. 55,000/- was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation under section 357 of Cr.P.C., 1973