Appellate court upholds conviction under Section 138, modifies sentence, orders payment.

The appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, modifying the sentence to three months' simple imprisonment and ordering the payment of a balance amount to the complainant. The court rejected the request for enhancement of punishment, upheld the validity of the statutory notice, and directed the accused to pay the balance amount within two months or face imprisonment. Both criminal revision cases were dismissed, and the complainant was permitted to withdraw the deposited amounts.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction and sentencing u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Enhancement of punishment.
3. Validity of statutory notice.
4. Quantum of sentence.

Summary:

1. Conviction and Sentencing u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The accused was convicted by the trial court for the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment. The first appellate court modified the sentence to three months' simple imprisonment and directed the accused to pay a balance amount of Rs. 2,85,000/- to the complainant, in addition to the Rs. 2,00,000/- already deposited.

2. Enhancement of Punishment:
The complainant filed Crl.R.C.No.807 of 2005 seeking enhancement of the punishment. The complainant argued that the accused was in the habit of borrowing money and issuing cheques without sufficient funds, leading to multiple cases u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court, however, found no merit in enhancing the sentence beyond the three months' simple imprisonment already imposed by the first appellate court.

3. Validity of Statutory Notice:
The accused contended that no statutory notice was received. The court found this argument unmeritorious, as Ex.P-9 proved that the notice was sent to the correct address and was refused by the accused. Thus, the notice was deemed to have been served validly.

4. Quantum of Sentence:
The court considered various precedents and the conduct of the accused, who had not paid the balance amount despite the appellate court's judgment. The court directed the accused to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 2,85,000/- within two months, failing which she would undergo one month simple imprisonment. The complainant was permitted to withdraw the Rs. 2,00,000/- already deposited and the additional Rs. 2,85,000/- upon deposit.

Conclusion:
The conviction and sentence by the first appellate court were confirmed. The trial court was directed to secure the custody of the accused to undergo the remaining period of the sentence if any. Both Crl.R.Cs. were dismissed, and the complainant was allowed to withdraw the deposited amounts.

---