DEVARSHA DNYANESHWAR PAROB Vs. MULGAO SIRIGAO ADVALPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment/order dated 19/08/2009 of the learned Additional sessions Judge, Mapusa by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has upheld the judgment/order dated 12/03/2009 of the learned JMFC, Bicholim, convicting and sentencing the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

(2.) The complainant is a Co-operative Society. The husband of the accused was a Secretary of the said Society during the tenure of one Patel, who was its Chairman. The case of the complainant is that the accused gave a cheque to the complainant dated 27/07/2005 for Rs.1 lac towards part repayment of the amount due by way of liability towards the complainant in the account no.28 of the said Dnyaneshwar Parob and when the complainant deposited the said cheque in the Goa State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bicholim, it was returned dishonoured on the ground that the funds were insufficient. The complainant, therefore, sent a notice dated 4/01/2006, to the accused to make the payment within 15 days. The accused replied to the said notice, inter alia, stating therein that there was no loan account bearing no.28 in the name of her husband Dnyaneshwar Parob, with the complainant. It was also stated that cheque in question was deposited with the complainant as security/guarantee as the husband of the accused was the Secretary of the complainant-society and there was no transaction between the accused and the complainant and so also between the husband of the accused with the complainant.

(3.) The complainant examined their Chairman Shri Tulsidas Parab in support of the complaint. The complainant also examined the Manager of the Bank of the accused, to say that the cheque was dishonoured on account of the insufficient funds in the account of the accused. The accused also gave her evidence and in her evidence categorically stated that her husband was working for the complainant-society for about 9 years, prior to two years. She also categorically stated that she had not obtained any loan from the complainant nor had stood as a surety for the accused at any time.