IMPORTANT POINT
Sentence and compensation cannot be on higher side.

C.S. Karnan, J.—The revision petitioner/appellant/accused has preferred the present revision in Cr.R.C.No.327 of 2012 against the judgment made in C.A.No.108 of 2007, on the file of the II-Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, confirming the conviction made in CC.No.7325 of 2004, on the file of XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.

2. The respondent/complainant’s case is as follows:

During the year 2003, on various occasions, the accused had borrowed sums of money amounting to Rs.10,00,000 from the complainant, to help her husband in the course of his film production business and executed demand promissory notes in favour of the complainant. On demand made by the complainant, the accused had given a cheque dated 3.7.2004, for a sum of Rs.10,00,000 drwan on State Bank of Hyderabad, Harrington Road Branch, Chennai, to and in favour of the complainant. When the complainant presented the cheque for encashment with her bankers, viz., State Bank of Hyderabad, Harrington Road Branch, on 3.7.2004, the same was returned with an endorsement of “insufficient funds”. The complainant issued legal notice to the accused on 4.7.2004 which was received by the accused. In spite of receipt of notice, the accused had neither replied nor paid the cheque amount. Hence, the complainant had filed a complaint against the accused for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.

3. On being questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty and hence trial was conducted. On the complainant’s side, the complainant was examined as PWl and 9 documents were marked as Exs. Pl to P9 viz., Ex. P1 cheque, Ex. P2 return memo, Ex. P3 lawyer’s notice, Ex.P4 acknowledgment card, Ex.P5 letter written by the accused to the school management acknowledging her debt and assuring prompt payment, Ex.P6 letter dated 31.12.2003 acknowledging the liability, Ex.P7 copy of bank account statement of complainant in different banks, Ex.P8 copy of bank account statement of complainant at State Bank of Hyderabad, Ex.P9 copy of the bank account statement of accused at State Bank of Hyderabad. On the side of the accused no witness, no documents.

4. PW1, the complainant had adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made by her in the complainant. PW1 adduced evidence that the accused after receiving the lawyer’s notice sent by her had given a letter of undertaking to her school management assuring that she would pay the cheque amount promptly and that the letter of undertaking had been marked as Ex.P5 and the letter given by the accused to her acknowledging the liability has been marked as Ex.P6. In support of her evidence, she had marked the documents listed as Exs.P1 to P9.

5. PW2, the Branch manager of State Bank of Hyderabad; Chetpet Branch had adduced evidence that the complainant had an account in their bank and that the account number is 83118 and also deposed that the accused also had an account in their bank as account No.6249. PW2 deposed that when the said cheque for Rs.10,00,000 was deposited by the complainant on 3.7.2004 (cheque No.513127), it was returned unpaid due to “insufficient funds” in the account of accused. In support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.P8, the bank account statement of complainant and Ex.P9, the bank account statement of accused.

6. The learned Magistrate observed that the accused had not disputed the liability or the issuance of cheque to the complainant. The learned Magistrate observed that the complainant had admitted that she had received a sum of Rs.l,80,000 from the accused towards discharge of the said loan. Hence, the learned Magistrate on considering the oral and documentary evidence held the accused guilty of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also directed her to pay a compensation of Rs.8,20,000 to the complainant within one month from the date of its order, in