PRADEEP CHANDRAN Vs. NIMMI VELAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case in which a young lady (Nimmi) has been prosecuted by her husband's brother (Pradeep). The parties are first cousins also. Nimmi is arraigned as accused and her brother inlaw Pradeep figures as the complainant in the case. If the prosecution version is true, Nimmi cannot escape conviction under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act'). But if the defence version is true, the complainant is reminiscent of the money lender immortalised by William Shakespere in his drama "Merchant of Venice". The complaint against the accused is that she gave a post dated cheque for Rupees forty thousand which was presented on the due date but was returned dishonoured.

(2.) Learned Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced her to pay a fine of Rupees five thousand. She filed an appeal before the Sessions Court. But complainant has come in revision in this court aggrieved by the inadequacy of the sentence imposed on the accused. Hence the appeal filed by the accused has since been withdrawn to this court to be heard along with the revision. Both are being disposed of together by this judgment.

(3.) The defence version, which seems to be peculiar to this case, is briefly stated below: Complainant requested the accused to give him a bit of land of the accused situate at the rear side of the hotel building in which she conducts her business called "Lobster