In Crl.RP.No.192/2013

The petitioner has challenged the judgment of conviction

dated 05.05.2012 passed by the IV Additional I Civil Judge and

JMFC, Mysuru C.C.No.159/2009, by which, she was convicted

for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act, 1881'

for short) and the consequent sentence to pay fine of

Rs.19,70,000/-. She has also challenged the judgment dated

16.01.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III,

Mysuru in Crl.A.No.83/2012, by which, the judgment of

conviction passed by the trial Court was upheld.

2.

The

complaint

registered

in

C.C.No.159/2009

discloses the following; that the respondent and the petitioner

were known to each other and that the petitioner availed a loan

of Rs.30,00,000/- for her business. She repaid a sum of

Rs.10,40,000/- but did not pay the balance Rs.19,60,000/-.

Later, on being pursued, the petitioner handed over a cheque

bearing

No.163318

dated

10.11.2008

for

a

sum

of

Rs.19,60,000/-. However, the said cheque was dishonoured

- 4 -

due to insufficient funds on 21.11.2008. The respondent

caused a notice of demand on 02.12.2008 which was served.

The petitioner replied to the notice partly admitting and

claiming that she had raised a loan of Rs.22,50,000/-, of which,

she had paid a sum or Rs.10,40,000/- and that she was liable

to pay a sum of Rs.12,10,000/- along with interest at the rate

of 18% per annum from 01.09.2008. Later, the respondent

therefore initiated proceedings to prosecute the petitioner for

an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881.

After the sworn statement of respondent was recorded, the

process in the proceedings was served on the petitioner, who

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The respondent was

examined as PW.1 and she marked Exs.P1 to P23. The

statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was

recorded. The petitioner denied the incriminating evidence

against her and lead evidence in defense as DW1.

3.

Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the

trial Court held that the petitioner had availed a loan from the

respondent and had passed on the cheque in question for the

repayment of a lawful debt and therefore, she had committed

- 5 -

an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881,

as the cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The

trial Court therefore convicted her for the said offence and

sentenced her to pay fine of a sum of Rs.19,70,000/-, failing

which, she was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a

period of three months. Being aggrieved by the said judgment

of conviction, she filed Crl.A.No.83/2012. The Appellate Court

secured the records of the trial Court, heard the counsel for the

parties and after framing points for consideration, dismissed

the appeal in terms of its judgment dated 16.01.2013.

4.

Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision

petition is filed.

5.

The petitioner was absent and therefore, this Court

felt it appropriate to request an Officer of the Court to assist

the Court as an Amicus Curiae. Smt.K.M.Archana, learned

counsel has agreed to do so. The learned Amicus Curiae after

going though the records submitted that the petitioner had

denied issuance of the reply at Ex.P9 and the consequent notice

at Ex.P10. She submitted that certain statement of the

petitioner recorded before the Police were marked as Exs.P13

- 6 -

and P14. She contends that it is quite possible that the cheque

in question was extracted from the petitioner at the Police

Station. Even otherwise, she contends the petitioner had

admitted her liability only to the extent of Rs.12,10,000/- and

interest at the rate of 18% per annum. She contends that even

if Exs.P9 & P10 are taken into account, then the petitioner was

not liable to pay a sum of Rs.19,60,000/- as on November-

2008. She therefore submits that the respondent has made a

bloated claim including an exorbitant rate of interest and

therefore, there w