VAHEEDA Vs. AJAYA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this Crl.R.P is against the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner, who is the accused in a prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court as well as the appellate court committed wrong in accepting the case of the complainant and on convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. According to the learned counsel when the revision petitioner/accused denied transaction between the complainant and the accused, it is for the complainant to establish the transaction supported by evidence. According to the learned counsel the substantial variation in the evidence of the petitioner regarding the transaction, the petitioner cannot be held liable under Section 138 of the NI act. THE learned counsel pointed out that during the cross examination, the complainant has stated that the husband of the revision petitioner approached the complainant demanding loan for the purpose of purchasing materials to the shop, but the amount was given to the accused. According to the learned counsel the above version of the complainant is against his own version. THE above submission of the learned counsel, is clearly on the basis of facts which are produced in the case properly appreciated by the trial court as well as the appellate court and rejected the contention of the revision petitioner.

(3.) REGARDING the sentence it is to be noted that though the trial court has imposed a sentence of three months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,05,000/-, the appellate court has reduced the period of simple imprisonment into till the rising of the court and converted the fine into a compensation under Section 357(3) and fixed the compensation amount as Rs.3,10,000/. The appellate court directed the revision petitioner to appear before the trial court on 31.5.2011 to serve the modified sentence and to pay compensation amount. Therefore, I find no reason to interference either with the sentence or with the direction to pay compensation. However, the petitioner is granted one month time to serve the modified sentence as ordered by the appellate court and to pay the compensation amount fixed by the very same appellate court and it is made clear that the default sentence fixed by the appellate court will be attracted only in case of failure on the part of the petitioner in appearing before the trial court and in paying the compensation amount on or before 30.6.2011. Coercive steps if any pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 30.06.2011.