NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 181 OF 2012
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 10537 OF 2010]
B. CHANDRAMATHI ... APPELLANT
Versus
N. PRAKASH ... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal, by grant of special leave, is directed
against the judgment and order dated 19.8.2008 passed by
the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dismissing
Criminal Revision Petition No.639 of 2007 filed by the
appellant.
3. The appellant-accused obtained a loan of Rs.4 lakhs on 22.7.2002 from the respondent-complainant on execution of promissory note and agreed to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum. On 23.10.2002, the appellant issued a cheque bearing No. 069725 for Rs.2 lakhs towards the repayment of the loan amount. When the said cheque was presented to the banker the same was returned with an endorsement "Insufficient Funds." The respondent served a
legal notice upon the appellant on 30.10.2002 and called
upon her to pay the cheque amount. The appellant replied to
the said notice on 12.12.2010 and sought three months time
to repay the amount. She did not repay the amount. On the
basis of the bounced cheque, the respondent filed a
complaint bearing No. CC 1217/03 before the Principal JMFC
Court, Davanagere. Learned JMFC convicted the appellant
for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act and sentenced her to simple imprisonment for one year
and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. Learned JMFC further
directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs.2,20,000/-
to the respondent. On appeal learned Additional Sessions
Judge confirmed the order of the trial court. The Criminal
3
Revision Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the
High Court by the impugned order. The High Court thus
confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
On 11.3.2011 a statement was made by learned
counsel for the appellant that the appellant has deposited
the amount of compensation i.e. Rs.2,20,000/-. A copy of
the money receipt dated 15.11.2010 issued by the JMFC
Court, Davanagere was filed in support of the statement.
On that day, fresh notice was issued to the respondent to
show-cause why the Special Leave Petition may not be
disposed of by passing appropriate orders at the stage of
admission after hearing both the sides. Despite service of
notice, the respondent has neither appeared before this
Court in person nor has he engaged any lawyer. We,
therefore, proceed to dispose of this appeal.
5. We have carefully perused the impugned order. The
High Court has confirmed the concurrent findings of the
4
courts below. The High Court's order cannot be
characterized as perverse. Learned counsel for the appellant
was unable to persuade us to take any other view of the
matter. The appellant admitted her signature on the
cheque. She sought time to repay the amount. She did not
enter the witness box. In the circumstances, in our opinion,
no interference is necessary with the order of conviction.
6. However, we find from the record that the appellant is
about 51 years of age. She is a poor widow who is eking out
a living for herself and her family by making jowar rotis and
selling them. She is the only earning member of her family.
She has two children to look after. It appears that the
appellant is unwell. She is stated to have suffered from
depression.
7. As of today, the appellant has undergone the sentence
for a period of about 2= months before she was released on
bail. Considering the fact that the appellant has deposited
the amount of compensation i.e. Rs.2,20,000/- and the fact
5
that the appellant is a widow and is the only earning
member in the family and considering the fact that though
served with notice the respondent has not cared to appear
in this Court, we are of the opinion that sentence already
undergone by her should be treated as a sentence for the
offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act. Order accordingly. The appellant is on bail. Her bail
bond stands discharged. Needless to say that this order is
passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
8. Appeal is disposed of in the aforestated terms.
.....................................................J.
(AFTAB ALAM)
.....................................................J.
(RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)
NEW DELHI,
JANUARY 20, 2012.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 181 OF 2012
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 10537 OF 2010]
B. CHANDRAMATHI ... APPELLANT
Versus
N. PRAKASH ... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal, by grant of special leave, is directed
against the judgment and order dated 19.8.2008 passed by
the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dismissing
Criminal Revision Petition No.639 of 2007 filed by the
appellant.
3. The appellant-accused obtained a loan of Rs.4 lakhs on 22.7.2002 from the respondent-complainant on execution of promissory note and agreed to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum. On 23.10.2002, the appellant issued a cheque bearing No. 069725 for Rs.2 lakhs towards the repayment of the loan amount. When the said cheque was presented to the banker the same was returned with an endorsement "Insufficient Funds." The respondent served a
legal notice upon the appellant on 30.10.2002 and called
upon her to pay the cheque amount. The appellant replied to
the said notice on 12.12.2010 and sought three months time
to repay the amount. She did not repay the amount. On the
basis of the bounced cheque, the respondent filed a
complaint bearing No. CC 1217/03 before the Principal JMFC
Court, Davanagere. Learned JMFC convicted the appellant
for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act and sentenced her to simple imprisonment for one year
and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. Learned JMFC further
directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs.2,20,000/-
to the respondent. On appeal learned Additional Sessions
Judge confirmed the order of the trial court. The Criminal
3
Revision Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the
High Court by the impugned order. The High Court thus
confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
On 11.3.2011 a statement was made by learned
counsel for the appellant that the appellant has deposited
the amount of compensation i.e. Rs.2,20,000/-. A copy of
the money receipt dated 15.11.2010 issued by the JMFC
Court, Davanagere was filed in support of the statement.
On that day, fresh notice was issued to the respondent to
show-cause why the Special Leave Petition may not be
disposed of by passing appropriate orders at the stage of
admission after hearing both the sides. Despite service of
notice, the respondent has neither appeared before this
Court in person nor has he engaged any lawyer. We,
therefore, proceed to dispose of this appeal.
5. We have carefully perused the impugned order. The
High Court has confirmed the concurrent findings of the
4
courts below. The High Court's order cannot be
characterized as perverse. Learned counsel for the appellant
was unable to persuade us to take any other view of the
matter. The appellant admitted her signature on the
cheque. She sought time to repay the amount. She did not
enter the witness box. In the circumstances, in our opinion,
no interference is necessary with the order of conviction.
6. However, we find from the record that the appellant is
about 51 years of age. She is a poor widow who is eking out
a living for herself and her family by making jowar rotis and
selling them. She is the only earning member of her family.
She has two children to look after. It appears that the
appellant is unwell. She is stated to have suffered from
depression.
7. As of today, the appellant has undergone the sentence
for a period of about 2= months before she was released on
bail. Considering the fact that the appellant has deposited
the amount of compensation i.e. Rs.2,20,000/- and the fact
5
that the appellant is a widow and is the only earning
member in the family and considering the fact that though
served with notice the respondent has not cared to appear
in this Court, we are of the opinion that sentence already
undergone by her should be treated as a sentence for the
offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act. Order accordingly. The appellant is on bail. Her bail
bond stands discharged. Needless to say that this order is
passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
8. Appeal is disposed of in the aforestated terms.
.....................................................J.
(AFTAB ALAM)
.....................................................J.
(RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)
NEW DELHI,
JANUARY 20, 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment