The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving the loan transaction, the service of legal notice, and the failure to establish valid defenses in cases of cheque bounce under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

ORDER

1. The present petitioner as the accused was tried by the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (V Court), Mangaluru, D.K. (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'the Trial Court'), in Criminal Case No.1743/2014, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'the N.I. Act') and was convicted for the said offence by its judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 12-01-2017.

Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred a Criminal Appeal, in the Court of the learned I Additional Principal District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangalore, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'the Sessions Judge's Court') in Criminal Appeal No.15/2017.

The appeal was contested by the respondent who was the complainant in the Trial Court. The Sessions Judge's Court in its judgment and order dated 11-01-2018, dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court dated 12-01-2017 in C.C.No.1743/2014.

Aggrieved by the said order, the accused has preferred this revision petition.

2. The summary of the case of the complainant in the Trial Court was that, at the request of the accused who was a known person to him, the complainant in the month of July 2014, had given a total sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- to her as hand loan. Towards the repayment of the loan amount, the accused had issued him a cheque bearing No.007907 dated 18-09-2014 drawn on the Corporation Bank, Konchadi Branch, Mangalore, for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- in favour of the complainant. When the said cheque was presented for its realisation, the same came to be returned with the Banker's endorsement 'funds insufficient'. Thereafter the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 15-10-2014 to the accused demanding from her the payment of the cheque amount. The said notice came to be returned to the sender with the postal shara 'intimation served - not claimed- returned to the sender'. Since the cheque amount remained unpaid, the complainant was constrained to institute a criminal case against the accused in C.C.No.1743/2014, in the Trial Court, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

3. The accused appeared in the Trial Court and contested the matter through her counsel. She pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, as such, the Trial Court proceeded to record the evidence. To prove his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-9 and closed his side. The accused got herself examined as DW-1 and got marked a single document as Ex.D-1, in her support.

4. The Trial Court after recording the evidence led before it and hearing both side, by its impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 12-01-2017 convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and ordered her to pay a fine of Rs. 6,05,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine amount, she was ordered to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.

As observed above, Challenging the impugned judgments of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court as well the Sessions Judges Court, the accused has preferred this revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner (accused) and learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant are appearing physically in the Court.

6. The Trial Court and Sessions Judge's Court's records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.

7. Though this matter was listed for Admission, with the consent from the learned counsels from both side, the same is taken up for final disposal.

8. Heard the learned counsels from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court including the impugned judgments and the Trial Court and Sessions Judge's Court's records.

9. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

10. After hearing