T. KALAVATHY Vs. VEERA EXPORTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 1071 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, No. I, Karur. The respondent herein filed the said private complaint seeking prosecution of the revision petitioner/accused under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial Court, on consideration of oral and documentary evidences, has convicted the revision petitioner vide judgment dated 24.06.2000 and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 9 months, compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs within three months from the date of the order with default sentence of three months simple imprisonment. The revision petitioner, aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, preferred an appeal in C.A. No. 34 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Sessions Judge, Karur. The lower appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 08.03.2004 has confirmed the sentence and conviction awarded by the trial Court. Challenging the legality of the same, the accused has filed this revision petition.

(2.) THE case of the respondent/complainant that it is a registered partnership Firm and it is carrying on business in Handlooms. The revision petitioner/accused is the Proprietor of Southern Mills and she had business dealings from the year 1994 with the respondent Firm and as per the books of accounts maintained by the respondent/complainant, a sum of Rs. 12,33,114.55/ - is due and payable. Towards discharge of part of the said dues, the revision petitioner/accused had issued cheques dated 09.04.1995, 13.04.1995, 17.04.1995, 18.04.1995, 21.04.1995, 24.04.1995, 27.04.1995 and 30.04.1995 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - each. The respondent/private complainant had presented all eight cheques for collection on 15.05.1995 with its bank, namely, Central Bank of India, Karur Branch and all the cheques were returned and when the respondent/complainant asked about the non -honouring of cheques, she told that she is not having enough funds to honour the cheques and sought a time of six months and taking into consideration of the longstanding business relationship, the respondent/private complainant has also granted time.

(3.) THE trial Court, on appearance of the revision petitioner/accused, has questioned her as to the commission of offences and she pleaded not guilty. The respondent/complainant in order to sustain its case has examined one of its partners as P.W. 1 and also P.Ws. 2 and 3 and marked Exs. P1 to P36.