The appellate court cannot enhance a sentence beyond that imposed by the trial court, and fines under the Negotiable Instruments Act must not exceed statutory limits.

ORDER :

1. The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.175 of 2011 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Thiruvananthapuram. She stood trial for committing an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before that court and was convicted and sentenced thereunder. The accused carried the matter in appeal by filing Crl.Appeal No.398 of 2012 before the Additional Sessions Court- IV, Thiruvananthapuram. The said court, vide judgment dated 27.08.2016, allowed the appeal in part and while upholding the conviction, modified the sentence.

2. The case of the complainant is that the accused had borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from him and had issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 20.05.2008 for discharging the said liability. When the cheque was presented for collection it got dishonoured for the reason that funds were insufficient. The statutory notice issued also did not evoke any response and the cheque amount remained unpaid. Hence, the complainant approached the trial court by filing C.C. No.175 of 2011.

3. In the trial court, from the side of the complainant, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P5 documents were marked. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., she denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against her in evidence and contended that she is innocent. The accused stated that she had no financial transactions with the complainant. From the side of the accused, DW1 and DW2 were examined. The trial court on an appreciation of the evidence on record, found the accused guilty and convicted her under Section 138 of the NI Act. It sentenced the accused to pay a fine of Rs.6,80,000/- under Section 138 of the NI Act, with a default clause.

4. In the appeal preferred by the accused, the appellate court even though has stated that the appeal is allowed in part, has sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.6,80,000/- with 9% interest from the date of transaction, till realisation, with a default clause. The fine amount, if realised, was ordered to be paid to the complainant under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C.

5. When the matter was taken up for consideration today, Adv.Anil Kumar C.R., the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is no more. But he also submitted that he ready to make submissions on merits in this case and hence, he was heard along with Adv.Biju Balakrishnan, the counsel for the 2^nd respondent. Perused the records.

6. Sri.Adv.Anil Kumar submitted that both the trial court and the appellate court have not appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective and has arrived at a wrong conclusion of guilt against the accused. He argued that the blank signed cheque kept by the accused has been taken away by her husband and handed over to the complainant, for discharging his liability towards the complainant, in a transaction attached to the financial institution run by the husband of the accused. He further submitted that both the trial court and the appellate court did not take into consideration the evidence of DW1 and DW2 on this point and has wrongly found the accused guilty of the offence.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent supported the impugned judgments and contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the same. He argued that the evidence of PW1 regarding the transactions and the issuance of the cheque, is credible and cogent and the accused has not adduced any reliable evidence to rebut the statutory presumptions. He also argued that the evidence of DW1 and DW2 are not credible and c