2020 (10) TMI 905

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order, the trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced her to pay fine of Rs. 2,50,000/-, in default to pay the fine amount, to serve the sentence of simple imprisonment of one year. Out of the fine amount, Rs. 2,45,000/- was ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- was ordered to be remitted to the State. 3. Petitioner was the accused and the respondent was the complainant before the trial Court. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to henceforth with their ranks before the trial Court. 4. Complainant presented the cheque - Ex.P1 dated 15.05.2006 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Chickmagaluru Branch for Rs. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order dated 18.02.2014, set aside the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court on the ground that the trial Court declined to accept the evidence adduced by the accused by way of affidavit. 9. Further this court in Criminal Revision Petition No.1561/2010 remanded the matter to the trial Court with a direction to record the defence evidence and dispose of the matter afresh. Accordingly, the trial Court recorded the further evidence of DW.1/accused. Again after hearing both the parties, the trial Court by the impugned order, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid and the First Appellate Court confirmed the same. 10. The records show that the accused contested ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... December 2005 for the purpose of naming ceremony that itself shows that the case of the complainant is false. He further submits that the complainant/PW.1 in his evidence admitted that the signature on Ex.P6 differs from that of the accused. Therefore, the Courts below were error in holding that Ex.P1 was issued towards discharge of legal liability and notice - Ex.P7 was served on the accused. 14. This being revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., against the concurrent findings of the trial Court on facts, the scope of interference is very limited. Unless it is shown that the orders of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court suffer perversity or glaring illegality, this Court cannot interfere in the orders of the trial Cour....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rightly held by both the Courts, if the cheque was misused to the detriment of the accused with such huge financial implications, no man of ordinary prudence sits back without initiating any action against the complainant or the said Shamala Godi which was not done by the accused. This circumstance also weighed with the Courts below. 20. Further, as admitted by the accused herself, she was involved in similar cheque bounce case as was evident by Ex.P-9 - the joint memo filed in Crl.Misc.No.93/2013 on the file of the II Additional J.M.F.C., Chikmagalur. 21. These records show that accused was involved in the similar case on the allegation of borrowing loan from one Annapoorna issuing cheque and the cheque was dishonoured. Ex.P9 the joint m....