REENA VARGHESE Vs. DEVASSY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in a prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I.Act') approached this Court by preferring the above revision petition challenging her conviction and sentence, imposed as per judgments of the trial court as well as the lower appellate court.

(2.) The case of the complainant is that, the complainant as well as the accused are family friends and the husband of the accused was a business man by profession and when he was suffering from some sort of ailment, the accused was in charge of the business of her husband and at that time, the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.1 lakh from the complainant for business purpose. According to the complainant, when the said amount was demanded back, the accused issued a cheque dated 4.7.2002 for an amount of Rs.1 lakh, which when presented for encashment dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account maintained by the accused and the cheque amount was not repaid inspite of a formal demand notice and thus the revision petitioner has committed the offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. With the said allegation, the complainant approached the Judl. First Class Magistrate Court- Chalakudy, by filing a formal complaint, upon which cognizance was taken u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and instituted C.C.No.47/03. During the course of the trial PW1 was examined from the side of the complainant and Exts.P1 to P7 were produced and marked. From the side of the defence, the accused herself was mounted to the box and gave evidence as Dw.1 and produced Exts.D1 to D3 documents. On the basis of the available materials and evidence on record, the trial court has found that the cheque in question was issued by the revision petitioner/ accused for the purpose of discharging her debt due to the complainant. Thus accordingly the court found that, the complainant has established the case against the accused/ revision petitioner and consequently found that the accused is guilty and thus convicted her u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. On conviction, the trial court sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a compensation of Rs.1 lakh to the complainant u/s.357(3) of Cr.P.C. and the default sentence is fixed as 3 months simple imprisonment.

(3.) Challenging the above conviction and sentence the accused preferred an appeal and by judgment dated 3.9.2008 in Crl.A.359/07 the court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court II) (Ad hoc), Thrissur, allowed the appeal only in part. Accordingly, while confirming the conviction, the sentence imposed by the trial court is modified and the revision petitioner is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one day, ie., till the rising of the court and also directed her to pay compensation of Rs.1 lakh to the complainant and the default sentence is fixed as 9 months simple imprisonment. It is the above conviction and sentence challenged in this revision petition.