RENU NINAN Vs. RADHAKRISHNAN UNNITHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in Summary Trial Case, S.T.C.No. 101/2009, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Mavelikkara, instituted on the basis of the complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein. The trial court by the impugned judgment dated 27.7.2010 had convicted the petitioner for the above said offence and had sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay compensation of Rs. 2.03 lakhs to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. and in default thereof, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 5 months. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had preferred Criminal Appeal No.432/2010 before the Sessions Court concerned. The appellate court (the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track [Ad hoc] Mavelikkara) as per the impugned judgment rendered on 26.12.2011 had dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the impugned conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the trial court. Challenging the above said concurrent verdicts of both the courts below, the petitioner had preferred the instant revision petition on 21.5.2012. This Court as per order dated 30.5.2012 had admitted the Crl.R.P. and had ordered notice on R-1 (complainant) and also ordered that the warrant, if any, pending against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month on condition that the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs. 50,000/- before the trial court within 4 weeks. When the matter had come up for consideration on 11.1.2017, this Court had wanted to ascertain from the petitioner's counsel as to whether the petitioner had deposited the amount of Rs. 50,000/- before the trial court in compliance with the earlier interim order dated 30.5.2012. Now it is reported by Sri. A. Shafeek, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that despite his diligent and consistent efforts, he has not been furnished instructions by the revision petitioner and also he had sent a registered notice calling upon her to furnish instructions. The said registered notice has been returned to the petitioner's counsel with the endorsement, "absent".

(2.) Heard Sri. A. Shafeek, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner accused, Smt. Bavana Velayudhan, learned counsel appearing for R-1 (complainant) and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-2 State.

(3.) The gist of the prosecution in this case is that towards discharge of liability owed by the accused to the complainant, the revision petitioner accused had issued 2 cheques, Ext.P-1 cheque dated 10.10.2007 for Rs. 1.25 lakhs and Ext.P-2 cheque dated 17.10.2007 for Rs. 75,000/-, and thus totalling to Rs. 2 lakhs, in favour of the complainant. The complainant had presented the said cheques for encashment, which resulted in dishonour. The complainant had issued statutory demand notice as per Ext.P-5 in terms of Section 138 proviso (b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by registered post, which was duly served. The petitioner had sent reply notice dated 6.5.2008 denying the transaction and stating that she had given blank signed cheques to various persons and these 2 cheques have been presented by the complainant by illegally obtaining them from such persons to whom she had granted cheques, etc.