VIJAYAKUMARI Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. She was found guilty and was therefore, convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,20,000/-, in default of payment of which, she shall suffer simple imprisonment for twenty days. In appeal, though the appellate court confirmed the conviction, modified the sentence as simple imprisonment till the rising of the court with a direction to pay a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/-as compensation to the complainant with a default clause of two months' simple imprisonment.

(2.) According to the complainant, the accused had borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/-from her and in discharge of that liability, the accused had issued to her a cheque for the above said amount, which, on presentation,was returned for want of funds in the account of theaccused. To the statutory notice issued to the accused,there was no response from her. Since the amountremained unpaid, a complaint was filed.

(3.) The trial court took cognizance of the offence. On appearance of the accused, the particulars of the offence were read out to her to which, she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore the prosecution examined PW1 to 3 and had Exts.P1 to P5 marked. After close of the complainant's evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. She denied all incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against her and maintained that she is innocent. According to her, she had borrowed and amount of Rs. 60,000/-from the complainant and at the time of payment of the said amount, she had given to the complainant a cheque for Rs. 1,20,000/-as security. The accused repaid an amount of Rs. 65,400/-including interest to the complainant. But, the complainant did not return the cheque given as security. According to the accused, the said cheque has been misused by the complainant to file a false case against her. However, she chose to adduce no evidence in support of her defence except to mark Exts.D1 and D2.