The compensatory nature of proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act and the court's authority to modify the sentence and compensation amount based on relevant legal provisions.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the Judgment of conviction dated 09.08.2019 in C.A.No.129 of 2018, on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Poonamallee, Thiruvallur District, confirming the order of conviction and sentence dated 10.05.2018 in S.T.C.No.351 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court Magisterial Level No.II, Poonamallee.)

1. This revision arises against the judgment of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Poonamallee passed in C.A.No.129/2018 on 09.08.2019.

2. The petitioner faced prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T.C.No.351/2016 on the file of the learned Fast Track Court, Magisterial Level No.II, Poonamallee. The prosecution case is that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) from the Respondent in a certain period of time to meet her urgent family needs. Towards discharge of the said debt, the petitioner issued a post dated cheque drawn on Indian Bank Pattabiram Branch for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only). The complainant presented the cheque for collection and upon the same having returned for the reason “Funds insufficient”, issued statutory notice and filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. Before the Trial Court, the respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and marked eight exhibits. The petitioner examined as D.W.1 and three exhibits were marked on her side.

4. The trial Court rendered a finding of conviction and sentenced the petitioner to undergo twelve months S.I and directed to pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) within a period of four months and in default to undergo for further period of four weeks S.I for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Against the same, the petitioner moved an Appeal in C.A.No.129/2018, which came to be dismissed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Poonamalle.

5. Heard, Mr.G.K.Tamizharasan, Legal Aid Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.D.J.Venkatesan, learned counsel for the Respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the cheque was only given as security for the loan taken by the husband of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has no relationship with the Complainant. The Petitioner also had requested the learned Magistrate to send the signature for comparison by an expert which was negatived by the Courts below.

7.The learned counsel for the Respondent submits that all the contentions have been considered by the Courts below and the contentions were rightly negatived by the Courts. There is no perversity will warranting interference by this Court in a revision.

8. On perusal of the judgement of the courts below, we find that the respondent had established the foundational facts required for drawing the presumption under section 139 of the NI Act. The Petitioner has not dislodged the said presumption either by cross examination or by adducing evidence on her side. The defence of the petitioner that the cheque was not issued in discharge of debt or liability to the respondent has not been established by the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case this Court finds that the Courts below have considered the evidence in the proper perspective and found the petitioner/accused guilty of the punishable offence under Section 138 of NI Act. The Petitioner has not rebutted the statutory presumption by adducing acceptable evidence or by raising down in the evidence of the complainant by cross examination. The finding of the Courts below cannot be faulted and no interference is called for in this revision.

9. However, this Court is of the view that the sentence imposed on the petitioner can be modified, keeping in mind that the proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act is primarily compensatory in n