R NAGALINGAM Vs. SULOCHANA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 67, 000/- as compensation, which was confirmed by the lower appellate Court.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that there are arguable points involved in this revision. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has rebutted the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as there is absolutely no legally enforceable liability on his part. LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioner further submits that there are enough materials available on record through cross-examination of the witness to show that there is no legally enforceable liability. Hence, I am of the considered view that this is a fit case for admission and suspension of sentence.

(3.) IN respect of the above said contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is relevant to note the settled principle of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of INdia reported in Bihari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and Another (2000) SCC (Crl) 1380. IN the above said decision, Their Lordship have held that for seeking suspension of sentence the accused need not be under confinement.